🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 27, 8:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> G. L. Bradford wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >news:Iohxj.52245$9j6.43603@attbi_s22...
> >> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> >>> Newton defined time and the space in the Principia as having both
> >>> absolute and relative natures.
>
> >>>http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/NewtonScholium...
>
> >>> Einstein fully understood and accepted both the absolute and relative
> >>> natures of space and time.
>
> >>   No--Actually Einstein showed that neither time for space are rigid and
> >>   absolute... that that both are malleable.
>
> >   Crystaline (Though not shatter proof.)!
>
> >   Malleable!
>
> >   Crystaline (Though not shatter proof)!
>
> >   Malleable!
>
> > .......... -- GLB
>
> >>   What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
> >>    http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>      Yup--Malleable. Take, for example, a growing crystal. The
>      rate of growth is different for observers with different
>      relative velocity to the growing crystal. Another example
>      is a vibrating crystal oscillator.
>
>      The observed clock's "duration of a second" depends
>      on the relative velocity (and difference in gravitational
>      potential) between the clock and the observer. Satellite
>      clocks are an excellent example.
>
>      Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>        http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>        http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....

you kiddin, right?

becus otherwise you seems ta be a fool

you fool, relaticity efects assume objects 100% rigid
behavioral wtr to effects,not maleability

otherwise thay dont relate, yuo fool