SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 25 May 2010 13:40 On May 24, 8:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you > > > look at the papers. > > > If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't > > > even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows > > > you're bullshitting. > > > ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to > > read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a > > taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER??? > > I *DO* tell my students to read the papers, yes. That is ABSOLUTELY > required of them, yes. And that is rightfully so. > > And keep in mind they are PAYING me to go over those papers with them > to help them make sense. > > You want just an answer without having to pay for it, and without > having to read anything. > > You are a lazy, shiftless, worthless fraud, and you aren't capable of > being a student. Having a hard time coping with the truth? > > > > > Ken Seto > >
From: kenseto on 25 May 2010 17:39 On May 25, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 8:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 22, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you > > > > look at the papers. > > > > If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't > > > > even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows > > > > you're bullshitting. > > > > ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to > > > read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a > > > taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER??? > > > I *DO* tell my students to read the papers, yes. That is ABSOLUTELY > > required of them, yes. And that is rightfully so. > > > And keep in mind they are PAYING me to go over those papers with them > > to help them make sense. > > > You want just an answer without having to pay for it, and without > > having to read anything. > > > You are a lazy, shiftless, worthless fraud, and you aren't capable of > > being a student. > > Having a hard time coping with the truth? No I decided not to waste anymore time with your because all you do is to tell me to read a book. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 17:46 On May 25, 2:39 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 25, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 24, 8:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 22, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you > > > > > look at the papers. > > > > > If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't > > > > > even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows > > > > > you're bullshitting. > > > > > ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to > > > > read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a > > > > taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER??? > > > > I *DO* tell my students to read the papers, yes. That is ABSOLUTELY > > > required of them, yes. And that is rightfully so. > > > > And keep in mind they are PAYING me to go over those papers with them > > > to help them make sense. > > > > You want just an answer without having to pay for it, and without > > > having to read anything. > > > > You are a lazy, shiftless, worthless fraud, and you aren't capable of > > > being a student. > > > Having a hard time coping with the truth? > > No I decided not to waste anymore time with your because all you do is > to tell me to read a book. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are two times whose rates slow down. One time is the slowdown for gravity. The second time is the slowdown for energy flowing through space created by its acceleration. GR time and SR time slows together for a two rate clock moving through gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 25 May 2010 17:53 On May 25, 4:39 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 25, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 8:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 22, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you > > > > > look at the papers. > > > > > If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't > > > > > even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows > > > > > you're bullshitting. > > > > > ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to > > > > read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a > > > > taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER??? > > > > I *DO* tell my students to read the papers, yes. That is ABSOLUTELY > > > required of them, yes. And that is rightfully so. > > > > And keep in mind they are PAYING me to go over those papers with them > > > to help them make sense. > > > > You want just an answer without having to pay for it, and without > > > having to read anything. > > > > You are a lazy, shiftless, worthless fraud, and you aren't capable of > > > being a student. > > > Having a hard time coping with the truth? > > No I decided not to waste anymore time with your because all you do is > to tell me to read a book. And that is what you should do. What you've been doing so far is completely unproductive. Why would you continue to do things in an unproductive manner? 1. You are unpublished, except in a self-published book and in a pay- for-placement vanity journal for cranks. 2. You have given a web presentation, during which you were mocked. 3. You cannot get your experimental proposals even seriously considered, let alone funded. 4. You do not have a single physicist referencing your work. 5. You have spent 15 years on usenet being told over and over and over again that you don't know what you're talking about -- you don't even know what the terminology means. The first thing that ANY decent scientist does is read a ton of stuff about the work that has been done so far, even if he intends to try to find something better. I don't know why you think you are not obligated to do the same. If a physicist tells you it's time to read a book, then by golly that should be something you consider doing! And if you can't bring yourself to do it, then you need to look at yourself hard in the mirror in the morning and ask yourself why that is. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 18:21
there are lots of folks on the nets (sik), who apparently are second-generation Americans, and who are not really literate in two languages. what I'm saying is, you'll never grok English, til you *try* to read Shakespeare -- which is all anyone can do, especially the God-am British. (see, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare," http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf ... of course, probably, one'd also have to "get classical" in one's mother tongue, two, ultimately .-) thusNso: there is no problem with using four dimensions, in two ways: a) a 3D movie; b) homogenous coordinates for ordinary space. unforunately, the British Psychological Society muddied the waters with monsieur A.A. Skwared -- as if the pythagorean theorem had anything to do with skwares, or even with 2D shapes, alas. thusNso: there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago, called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, that was just a dataset of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been "incorporated" by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration. when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and there were plans for starting a new one, some time. > Here's some data from Iowa State University > http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html thusNso: "case" is every thing, in this context, and I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-) anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since everyone else comprehends them to be two forms of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass. you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie, by "transforming the equation into maether." > Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter > have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2. > Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it. thusNso: there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though there really is no discernible world-around "rise of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as with so much else). thusNso: there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts continuous with distance, or just very subtle? the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" a la Dubya. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > is stray light coming in from another source. That's how, > We didn't really go to Moon! thusNso: you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g.. --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com |