Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400679
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 04:49 -0800 |
| References | (22 earlier) <o1q46k$1oro$1@gioia.aioe.org> <57197671-e900-444d-a2cb-c6cf3961f4aa@googlegroups.com> <o1s3n1$f93$2@pcls7.std.com> <2e0b7b44-37b1-44d5-990c-9244162fe08c@googlegroups.com> <o1t1e7$5ie$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| Message-ID | <a3d1ccb3-5ee1-425e-8ab4-e01deff84438@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck |
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:51:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) > >> >> > > >> >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock > >> >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock. > >> >> > >> >> No, that's not what that equation means. > >> > >> >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't > >> >just making bogus assertion. > >> > >> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as > >> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will > >> measure the clock as running slow in SR. > > >There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that > >the result of the LT prediction as measurement. > > No, Stupid Ken. I said "observer", not "fortune teller". The observer observes, > and the actual observing involves measurement. Moron, after you collect the appropriate data you use the LT to get the actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a measurement as you asserted. Gee you are stupid,,,,,no wonder your name is Moron-y. >A fortune teller predicts. Much > of science is observation, including making measurements. A scientist making > observations trying to understand SR will measure a moving clock in order to > verify that it does run slow as SR states. As I stated, in SR, only an observer > moving relative to the clock will measure it as ticking slower.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-28 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-29 05:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 14:50 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:57 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 09:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 19:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 08:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 04:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 23:51 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-03 04:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 06:01 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 16:45 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 10:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 06:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:41 -0800
csiph-web