Two clocks; one moving past the other at high speed
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
Next: The Quantum Geometry of the Spacetime
From: nuny on 5 Nov 2009 15:52 On Nov 5, 11:36 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful".. > > > > It has its advantages. > > > > No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify > > "most important" ? > > Through my intuition. And it is never wrong. What is your intuition's answer my question; "One train is stationary with respect to the Earth, but the Earth is rotating with an equatorial velocity of ~1000 mph eastward. The other train is traveling westward at 1000 mph, cancelling the Earth's rotation velocity. Which train's clock runs slow?" Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 5 Nov 2009 18:05 On Nov 5, 12:52 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:36 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful". > > > > > It has its advantages. > > > > > No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify > > > "most important" ? > > > Through my intuition. And it is never wrong. > > What is your intuition's answer my question; > > "One train is stationary with respect to the Earth, but the Earth is > rotating with an equatorial velocity of ~1000 mph eastward. The other > train is traveling westward at 1000 mph, cancelling the Earth's > rotation velocity. > > Which train's clock runs slow?" > > Mark L. Fergerson With respect to the space they traverse through globaly(since there is no absolute rest) both are going slow. Mitch Raemsch
From: Aleph on 5 Nov 2009 19:17 On Thursday 05 November 2009 19:36, in <7f26dad9- a4c5-42d0-9dea-1d3d78d0696e(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, BURT sat down and wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful". >> > > It has its advantages. >> >> > No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important. >> >> > Mitch Raemsch >> >> No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify >> "most important" ? > > Through my intuition. And it is never wrong. > > Mitch Raemsch Just when I thought the kookfest was getting boring, out came your meglomania. Wonderful. Thanks Mitch. -- Aleph This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to this account are very likely to be ignored.
From: Inertial on 5 Nov 2009 21:02 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f9e4d2ab-86e0-406e-8e56-37a8fb4e8763(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > >news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen >> > > > as >> > > > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing >> > > > around >> > > > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This >> > > > contradiction is dumb science. >> >> > > So speaks the dumb non-scientist. >> >> > If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that >> > clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any >> > other way. >> >> > Mitch Raemsch >> >> xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for >> every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I see you are talking about yourself. > > I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after > he developed General Relativity. You are no scientist .. you're a bullshit artist.
From: BURT on 5 Nov 2009 21:27
On Nov 5, 6:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:f9e4d2ab-86e0-406e-8e56-37a8fb4e8763(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> > >news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > > If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen > >> > > > as > >> > > > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing > >> > > > around > >> > > > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This > >> > > > contradiction is dumb science. > > >> > > So speaks the dumb non-scientist. > > >> > If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that > >> > clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any > >> > other way. > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > >> xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for > >> every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I see you are talking about yourself. > > > I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after > > he developed General Relativity. > > You are no scientist .. you're a bullshit artist.- Hide quoted text - > Carl Marx said accuse your enermy of what you do. It was fullproof. I won't let you do that to me. Mitch Raemsch |