🚀 go-pugleaf

Andro wrote:
> "jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message news:1168213510.581626.53610@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1167795780.694882.237800@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | > |
> | > | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > | > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:rvflp2ltoun34hcs762k0k596o7b5bu77h@4ax.com...
> | > | > | On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:01:13 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
> | > | > | wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >Wolfgang G. Gasser wrote:
> | > | > | >> Two distant observers with each a (transversal) LIGHT CLOCK orbit at a
> | > | > | >> constant distance around their common center (assumed at rest).
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> Special relativity postulates that the light beams in both light clocks
> | > | > | >> propagate at c relative to both (almost inertially moving) observers.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >That is the key point -- these observers are NOT moving inertially. The
> | > | > | >approximation is important (see below), and negates your claims.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> This requires that for each observer the clock rate of the opposite clock
> | > | > | >> CAN be lower than the clock rate of his own clock.
> | > | > | >> Because of symmetry and unchanging distance, clock rate CANNOT differ.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >The error is in your gedanken, not in SR itself.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >For approximately inertial motion, the basic equations of SR are only
> | > | > | >APPROXIMATELY valid. You ignored the approximation you, yourself, made.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >At a deeper level, however, such orbiting observers cannot be treated as
> | > | > | >inertial observers, because a circle is different topologically from a
> | > | > | >line. In SR's Minkowski spacetime, inertial observers move in straight
> | > | > | >lines, not in circles, and the basic equations of SR are valid for
> | > | > | >inertial observers and coordinates. Yes, for a very large radius a
> | > | > | >circle is approximately a straight line for a small portion of its
> | > | > | >circumference, but if one uses the fact it is a circle in any way, or
> | > | > | >uses a large fraction of the circumference, then these are not inertial
> | > | > | >observers, not even approximately.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | So the GPS clocks that you claim prove SR correct move in straight lines do
> | > | > | they Snipper?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | ....You become more of a comedian with every post...
> | > | >
> | > | > He's like Dork Van de psychopath, fired from his job and
> | > | > makes it up as he goes along.
> | > | >
> | > | > "The basic equations of SR are only APPROXIMATELY valid"
> | > |
> | > | Liar.
> | >
> | > On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:01:13 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote:
> | >
> | > "the basic equations of SR are only APPROXIMATELY valid."
> | >
> | > and he should know, he wrote a lot in the FAQ's.
> | >
> | > The basic equations of NM are what the basic equations
> | > of SR approximate to.
> | >
> | > Fuck off, you cunt.
> |
> | Grow up Andy
>
> I did grow up 'andy. I'm very handy.
> Quit drooling, Baugh.

In the 60's they called this game "the dozens" and I simply do not care
to play.