🚀 go-pugleaf

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> wrote in message news:1168703169.715641.208460@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> 
> 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.
>
Then grow up and fuck off,  the basic equations of NM are what the basic equations of SR approximate to.