Physics Talk
Physics Talk
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Education Forums
Are *observed* SR effects real?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Physics Talk Forum Index -> Relativity
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Spaceman
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 16, 12:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars
and Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities.
Oh, sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that
is 80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.

LOL
Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles +
30,000 miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.

Why, no, no it's not, Spaceman. Direct measurement of the velocities
shows this is NOT the case.

Then you apparently did not add "those speeds".
But of course we know you have a problem with
your dillusion of time slowing because of speed so you are also
not using the same "single standard" for an "hour" for each speed
to begin with.
No wonder you are so lost.
You lost the science of measurement and still can't tell.
LOL

Poor PD thinks mile + mile does not equal 2 miles.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


PD
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:40 am    Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? Reply with quote

On Jul 16, 10:36 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
Quote:
In article
1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce32...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,

 PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

[...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
will pull up loads of details.

Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without GPS wouldn't be GPS at all,
would it? What do you mean by "not included"?

Sorry, bad typo. Meant to say, "The degree to which GPS would be badly
designed if relativity were not included is a frequently reminded
topic on this newsgroup."
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Sue...
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:49 am    Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? Reply with quote

On Jul 16, 11:36 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
Quote:
In article
1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce32...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

[...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
will pull up loads of details.

Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without [GR General Relativity]

wouldn't be GPS at all,
Quote:
would it? What do you mean by "not included"?

That is a typo.
The subject line refers to Special Relativity (SR)

Relativity
The Special and General Theory
--Albert Einstein
http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Sue...

Survival kit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Quote:

--
Odysseus
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Odysseus
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:36 am    Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? Reply with quote

In article
<1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce3224b@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Quote:
[...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
will pull up loads of details.

Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without GPS wouldn't be GPS at all,
would it? What do you mean by "not included"?

--
Odysseus
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Androcles
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? Reply with quote

"Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:odysseus1479-at-3AA5F9.21364116072008@news.telus.net...
| In article
| <1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce3224b@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
| PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
| > [...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
| > included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
| > will pull up loads of details.
|
| Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without GPS wouldn't be GPS at all,
| would it? What do you mean by "not included"?
|
| --
| Odysseus


Anyone can design their own receiver... what the idiot meant to say was
"if GR was not included to ensure the satellite clocks were synchronised"
as if that were necessary.
Einstein said it, the cretin believes it, that settles it.
Back to top
  Ads
Advertising
Sponsor


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Physics Talk Forum Index -> Relativity All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20
Page 20 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding
Escorts Incalll and Outcall in Modena, Bologna, Parma, Ferrara, Forli' ...
Get Laid Tonight
Soap Primer v0 Italian
Cheap Car Insurance
Make Your Own Website
Cheap phone calls to Canada
Long island Cleaning service
Mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Janitorial Supplies
Vacuum Parts



Board Security

93 Attacks blocked

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group