Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407690 > unrolled thread

What Causes of TIME Dilation?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 10:32 -0600
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:16 -0800
        Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:18 -0600
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:38 -0800
            Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:44 -0600
              Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-04 06:13 +1100
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:36 -0600
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:30 -0800
                    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 16:27 +0000
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 08:46 -0800
                        Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 21:51 +0000
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 11:28 -0800
                    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:28 -0600
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 15:40 -0800
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 16:03 -0800
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:20 -0800
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:49 +0000
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 03:40 +1100
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 14:30 -0800
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 03:41 +1100
                    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 12:30 -0800
              Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:46 +0000
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 14:02 -0600
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:26 -0800
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 14:52 -0800
                    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:07 -0600
                      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:20 -0800
                        Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:30 -0600
                          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-06 00:55 +1100
                            Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:37 -0600
                              Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-05 08:22 -0800
                                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:57 -0600
                                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-05 19:48 +0100
                                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-06 09:10 +1100
                                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-05 21:24 +0000
                          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:22 -0800
              Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:33 -0800
            Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 11:03 -0800
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-02-04 15:37 -0800
            Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:35 -0600
              Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-05 08:27 -0800
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 08:47 -0800
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:28 -0800
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:55 -0600
                  Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:29 -0800
                Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-05 18:24 +0000
        Re: What Causes Ken Shito's imbecility? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 10:30 -0800
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 09:04 -0800
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:34 -0800
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 18:32 +0000
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:38 -0800
        Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:44 +0000
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:00 +0000
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-04 06:31 +1100
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 19:58 +0000
    Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:45 -0800
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:53 +0000
        Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:26 -0800
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-04 08:40 +0000
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:05 -0800
          Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 07:34 -0800
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:51 -0600
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-03 14:00 -0800
      Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:47 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#407831

On 04/02/17 09:30, Gary Harnagel wrote more autism evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407870

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 9:41:03 AM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 04/02/17 09:30, Gary Harnagel wrote more autism evidence.

:-)))

And then proof that delusional Ralphie-boy is delusional:

> Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment

So is stupid Ralphie-boy delusional or is he just a bare-faced liar?

Actually, he's both.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407738

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against 
>experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day 
>out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with 
>measured facts IS the case that the claim is true.

>THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative 
>calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one.

That is because Ken *can't* make any quantitative calculations. He can't
even figure out the value of (-6)/(-2).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407744

On 2/3/2017 1:46 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against
>> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day
>> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with
>> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true.
>
>> THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative
>> calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one.
>
> That is because Ken *can't* make any quantitative calculations. He can't
> even figure out the value of (-6)/(-2).
>

And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of 
theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making 
assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of 
determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with 
measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407747

The Arrow of Time is being Force into the future by the universe losing Kinetic Energy energy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407776

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/3/2017 1:46 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against
> >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day
> >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with
> >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true.
> >
> >> THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative
> >> calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one.
> >
> > That is because Ken *can't* make any quantitative calculations. He can't
> > even figure out the value of (-6)/(-2).
> >
> 
> And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of 
> theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making 
> assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of 
> determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with 
> measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.

I have not seen you make any computation using SR. Show me your SR 
computations and I will you my IRT computations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407778

On 2/3/2017 4:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of
>> theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making
>> assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of
>> determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with
>> measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.
>
> I have not seen you make any computation using SR. Show me your SR
> computations and I will you my IRT computations.
>

Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime 
Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?

The point is, computations using SR are ALL OVER THE PLACE, if you would 
quit whining and get the books at the library. I had no idea you were 
incapable of getting around and an invalid.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407813

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/3/2017 4:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of
> >> theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making
> >> assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of
> >> determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with
> >> measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.
> >
> > I have not seen you make any computation using SR. Show me your SR
> > computations and I will you my IRT computations.
> >
> 
> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime 
> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?

I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.

> 
> The point is, computations using SR are ALL OVER THE PLACE, if you would 
> quit whining and get the books at the library. I had no idea you were 
> incapable of getting around and an invalid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407895

On 2/4/2017 7:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/3/2017 4:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>> And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of
>>>> theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making
>>>> assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of
>>>> determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with
>>>> measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.
>>>
>>> I have not seen you make any computation using SR. Show me your SR
>>> computations and I will you my IRT computations.
>>>
>>
>> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime
>> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?
>
> I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.

This isn't between you and me. It's between you and the world of 
physicists. They have oodles of documented calculations using SR. You 
have nothing.

>
>>
>> The point is, computations using SR are ALL OVER THE PLACE, if you would
>> quit whining and get the books at the library. I had no idea you were
>> incapable of getting around and an invalid.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407942

On 05/02/17 10:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/4/2017 7:20 AM, kenseto wrote:

>>>
>>> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime
>>> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?
>>
>> I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.
>
> This isn't between you and me. It's between you and the world of
> physicists. They have oodles of documented calculations using SR. You
> have nothing.

Those 'oodles' represent oodles of wasted time and effort. Calculations 
are not proof! They are just part of your religion...good indoctrination 
material....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407955

On 2/5/2017 7:55 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 05/02/17 10:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/4/2017 7:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime
>>>> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?
>>>
>>> I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.
>>
>> This isn't between you and me. It's between you and the world of
>> physicists. They have oodles of documented calculations using SR. You
>> have nothing.
>
> Those 'oodles' represent oodles of wasted time and effort. Calculations
> are not proof!

Nope, but the experimental validation of those calculations (which you 
deny every happened) does show the theory valid. Of course, Seto doesn't 
even have any calculations, let alone experimental validation. That's 
the point.

> They are just part of your religion...good indoctrination
> material....


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407967

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 7:55 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> > On 05/02/17 10:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2017 7:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime
> >>>> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?
> >>>
> >>> I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.
> >>
> >> This isn't between you and me. It's between you and the world of
> >> physicists. They have oodles of documented calculations using SR. You
> >> have nothing.
> >
> > Those 'oodles' represent oodles of wasted time and effort. Calculations
> > are not proof!
> 
> Nope, but the experimental validation of those calculations (which you 
> deny every happened) does show the theory valid. Of course, Seto doesn't 
> even have any calculations, let alone experimental validation. That's 
> the point.

I asked you to show me some SR calculations and I will show you some IRT calculations. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407985

On 2/5/2017 10:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> I asked you to show me some SR calculations and I will show you some IRT calculations.

SR calculations are available to anyone who is not an incapacitated invalid.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407997

On 05.02.2017 17:22, kenseto wrote:
>
> I asked you to show me some SR calculations and I will show you some IRT calculations.
>

Here are some SR calculations:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

Can you show us some IRT calculations?
For example: What does IRT predict for the Sagnac experiment?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408021

On 06/02/17 05:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 05.02.2017 17:22, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> I asked you to show me some SR calculations and I will show you
>> some IRT calculations.
>>
>
> Here are some SR calculations:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

Your funny little articles are hopelessly flawed.
Your Sagnac analysis assumes light behaves like a simple oscillator when
in fact it does not oscillate in transit at all.
It also assumes that at the instant light leaves its source, it somehow 
'knows' in advance whether it will be sent around a circle or will 
travel in a straight line. That determines whether is moves at c or c+v 
relative to its source.
Can you not see how stupid that is?

> Can you show us some IRT calculations? For example: What does IRT
> predict for the Sagnac experiment?

I can't see why Ken would ever want to emulate your mistakes.



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408013

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>I asked you to show me some SR calculations and I will show you some IRT 
>calculations. 

No, you won't.  Even if he did show you SR calculations, you are unable
to show any IRT calculations. That's because you can't even show the
calculation of the value of (-6)/(-2).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408122

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/4/2017 7:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/3/2017 4:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>> And because he can't, he thinks it unfair that scientists demand this of
> >>>> theories. He thinks its a scam to keep ordinary people from just making
> >>>> assertions under the guise of them being theories. This business of
> >>>> determining the truth of theories by quantitative comparison with
> >>>> measurement is bogus and ignorable, according to him.
> >>>
> >>> I have not seen you make any computation using SR. Show me your SR
> >>> computations and I will you my IRT computations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Would you like me to copy Sample Problem L-3 on page 110 of Spacetime
> >> Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler here, or can you look it up yourself?
> >
> > I am not going to look it up. You show us your SR calculation here.
> 
> This isn't between you and me. It's between you and the world of 
> physicists. They have oodles of documented calculations using SR. You 
> have nothing.

Sure it is between you and I.....You asked me to provide IRT calculations and I asked you to provide SRT calculations.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> The point is, computations using SR are ALL OVER THE PLACE, if you would
> >> quit whining and get the books at the library. I had no idea you were
> >> incapable of getting around and an invalid.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407817

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:44:52 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/3/2017 12:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> What causes time dilation?
> >>>>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation.
> >>>>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assertion is not an argument.
> >>>
> >>> There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >>
> >> And IRT is a baseless assertion.
> >
> > Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories are baseless
> > assertions. Gee you are stupid.
> 
> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against 
> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day 
> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with 
> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true.

Show us your SRT calculations here then I will show my IRT calculations.

> 
> THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative 
> calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> When you just SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE without making a sound case that it
> >> is true, then that's an assertion, Ken.
> >>
> >> You SAY IT IS TRUE that the only time that exists is absolute time, but
> >> you haven't made any sound case that it is true, then you have made an
> >> assertion.
> >>
> >> Assertion is not an argument.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407722

W dniu piątek, 3 lutego 2017 19:38:01 UTC+1 użytkownik kenseto

> Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories are baseless assertions. Gee you are stupid.


The LET is a classical science.

And the cause of the observed clock slow-down effect
is just the less of lightspeed (average) in a moving system:

<c> = c/k = c*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) < c;

thus any process in moving sys. slows-down k times.

Simply: real efficiency of any machinery (a phys. system)
depends directly on the internal transmission speed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407900

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:18:54 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/3/2017 12:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> What causes time dilation?
> >>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation.
> >>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.
> >>
> >> Assertion is not an argument.
> >
> > There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> 
> And IRT is a baseless assertion.
> 
> When you just SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE without making a sound case that it 
> is true, then that's an assertion, Ken.
> 
> You SAY IT IS TRUE that the only time that exists is absolute time, but 
> you haven't made any sound case that it is true, then you have made an 
> assertion.
> 
> Assertion is not an argument.
> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what you wrote?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web