Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Absolute motion in kinetic theory
From: colp on 20 Jul 2010 00:09 On Jul 20, 5:59 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > colp wrote: > > [...] > > > Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of > > reference > > [...] > > How stupid can you get? Jeeze... How stupid is someone who can't back up their accusations? "You've already been caught once fabricating quotes about what papers say," ~ Eric Gisse
From: colp on 20 Jul 2010 00:12 On Jul 19, 8:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:482cf620-e314-4568-b59f-194ecf1c0b26(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... > ==================== > Mission accomplished. I've been writing up some arguments about why Einstien's relativity fails.. Could you explain your v vs v + c argument, please?
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 00:32 On Jul 20, 2:09 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 20, 5:59 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > colp wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of > > > reference > > > [...] > > > How stupid can you get? Jeeze... > > How stupid is someone who can't back up their accusations? That's you. You come here, make claims against SR and can't back them up. What a hypocrite you are
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 00:34 On Jul 20, 2:12 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 8:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:482cf620-e314-4568-b59f-194ecf1c0b26(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com.... > > On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... > > ==================== > > Mission accomplished. > > I've been writing up some arguments about why Einstien's relativity > fails.. None of them valid so far .. the burden is on you to support your allegations. Seeing you don't have any, it must just be a wild guess instead of science. > Could you explain your v vs v + c argument, please? BAHAHAH .. you take Androcles seriously .. and expect a serious answer .. he just plays with little fools like you and then spits you out. He's a bigger troll than you .. his only slightly redeeming attribute is his sense of humor. He can't even do basic math, let alone understand physics. Actaully .. maybe you two deserve each other.
From: Androcles on 20 Jul 2010 05:27
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:02e6e019-e37f-46d7-b965-17cc73d4dead(a)y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com... On Jul 19, 8:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:482cf620-e314-4568-b59f-194ecf1c0b26(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... > ==================== > Mission accomplished. I've been writing up some arguments about why Einstien's relativity fails.. Could you explain your v vs v + c argument, please? ========================================= I'd be happy to explain any argument of mine that you do not understand, but in this case I do not recall presenting a v vs v+c argument. If you'd care to cite an instance of my alleged v vs v+c argument I'm sure the matter can be resolved. |