> On May 18, 9:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/12 5:26 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>> On May 18, 5:12 pm, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 18, 3:12 pm, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 12:36 pm, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 18, 9:17 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 18, 9:39 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 18, 8:24 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
>>>>>>>>> simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
>>>>>>>>> speed of light postulate.
>>>>>>>> Forgive me, Mr. Seto, but this does not seem of much value. As far as
>>>>>>>> I know scientists don't place much value on a proposed theory being
>>>>>>>> simpler.
>>>>>>> It appears that you don't know much.
>>>>>> That may be so, Mr. Seto, after all I am not a scientist. But I have
>>>>>> read a lot about what scientists do and how they do it. You may be
>>>>>> deeply disappointed that they do not see the goal of science to be
>>>>>> what you think it should be. If that should turn out to be a basic
>>>>>> disagreement who do you think should end up winning that argument, Mr.
>>>>>> Seto?
>>>>>>>> I am guessing that you want to find a theory that looks like
>>>>>>>> classical physics and still does what general relativity does. You
>>>>>>>> should be all means work on that. What will be important to scientists
>>>>>>>> is that you show you can do calculated predictions like what general
>>>>>>>> relativity can do. The advantages you have proposed are practically
>>>>>>>> worthless compared to that. They may be very valuable to you
>>>>>>>> personally but not to scientists I believe.
>>>>>>> It appears that you are very dense.....I gave the modified SR math
>>>>>>> that can be used to replace GRT math in all applications.
>>>>>> But you have not shown that using this math actually predicts things.
>>>>> Hey idiot....It can be used to calculate time dilation if you have the
>>>>> following data available:
>>>>> V_ab=10000m/s
>>>>> c'=290,000 km/s
>>>>> V_ab and c' are determined as follows:
>>>>> V_ab = (freuency of the standard source in A's frame - measured
>>>>> frequency of incoming standard light in B's frame)(universal
>>>>> wavelength of standard source)
>>>>> c'=(frequency of incoming standard light)(universal wavelength of
>>>>> standard light source)
>>>>> Gee you are very stupid.
>>> Because you are stupid?
>>>> Why would you call me stupid, Mr. Seto, if you are the one to do the
>>>> calculations with a calculator and producing a number?
>>>> To see what I mean, you should decide which of the variables above you
>>>> would like to calculate the value of. Then put in numbers for
>>>> everything else and then actually punch numbers into a calculator to
>>>> find the number you said you were going to predict.
>>> Hey idiot....I said that we want to calculate the time dilation. Gee
>>> you are stupid.
>>>> Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
>>>> incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
>>>> is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
>>>> compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.
>>>> Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
>>>> above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
>>>> source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
>>>> shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
>>>> incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
>>>> like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
>>>> be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
>>>> scientists do.
>>> Hey idiot....V_ab is calculated from a measured incoming frequency.
>>> Gee you are stupid.
>> But, Seto, you have *never* been able to calculate anything! What's
>> the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
>> orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.
>> Why can't your theory come up with the answer?
> Fucking idiot....the equation for time dilation in a gravitational
> field is as follows:
> Delta(Tab)=Delta(Taa)*sqrt((1-(Vab)^2/c'^2))
> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Well, can you calculate an answer or not? What *is* the time
dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?
> > On May 18, 9:33 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/12 5:26 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> >>> On May 18, 5:12 pm, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 18, 3:12 pm, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On May 18, 12:36 pm, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 18, 9:17 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 18, 9:39 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On May 18, 8:24 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The proposed modified SR math will replace GRT/SRT. It is much more
> >>>>>>>>> simplier and it devoids of all paradoxes resulted from the constant
> >>>>>>>>> speed of light postulate.
> >>>>>>>> Forgive me, Mr. Seto, but this does not seem of much value. As far as
> >>>>>>>> I know scientists don't place much value on a proposed theory being
> >>>>>>>> simpler.
> >>>>>>> It appears that you don't know much.
> >>>>>> That may be so, Mr. Seto, after all I am not a scientist. But I have
> >>>>>> read a lot about what scientists do and how they do it. You may be
> >>>>>> deeply disappointed that they do not see the goal of science to be
> >>>>>> what you think it should be. If that should turn out to be a basic
> >>>>>> disagreement who do you think should end up winning that argument, Mr.
> >>>>>> Seto?
> >>>>>>>> I am guessing that you want to find a theory that looks like
> >>>>>>>> classical physics and still does what general relativity does. You
> >>>>>>>> should be all means work on that. What will be important to scientists
> >>>>>>>> is that you show you can do calculated predictions like what general
> >>>>>>>> relativity can do. The advantages you have proposed are practically
> >>>>>>>> worthless compared to that. They may be very valuable to you
> >>>>>>>> personally but not to scientists I believe.
> >>>>>>> It appears that you are very dense.....I gave the modified SR math
> >>>>>>> that can be used to replace GRT math in all applications.
> >>>>>> But you have not shown that using this math actually predicts things.
> >>>>> Hey idiot....It can be used to calculate time dilation if you have the
> >>>>> following data available:
> >>>>> V_ab=10000m/s
> >>>>> c'=290,000 km/s
> >>>>> V_ab and c' are determined as follows:
> >>>>> V_ab = (freuency of the standard source in A's frame - measured
> >>>>> frequency of incoming standard light in B's frame)(universal
> >>>>> wavelength of standard source)
> >>>>> c'=(frequency of incoming standard light)(universal wavelength of
> >>>>> standard light source)
> >>>>> Gee you are very stupid.
> >>> Because you are stupid?
> >>>> Why would you call me stupid, Mr. Seto, if you are the one to do the
> >>>> calculations with a calculator and producing a number?
> >>>> To see what I mean, you should decide which of the variables above you
> >>>> would like to calculate the value of. Then put in numbers for
> >>>> everything else and then actually punch numbers into a calculator to
> >>>> find the number you said you were going to predict.
> >>> Hey idiot....I said that we want to calculate the time dilation. Gee
> >>> you are stupid.
> >>>> Let's say you were going to calculate this quantity: (frequency of
> >>>> incoming standard light). You would want to calculate this because it
> >>>> is what you would like to predict a value for so that you can see it
> >>>> compared to an actually measured value for that quantity.
> >>>> Let's suppose the standard light were sodium. Now according to the
> >>>> above you know values for Vab, c', the universal wavelength of the
> >>>> source, and the frequency of the standard source in A's frame. So
> >>>> shouldn't you be able to find the value of the frequency of the
> >>>> incoming standard light? Can you please put numbers in the calculator
> >>>> like scientists do and produce a number out? I am guessing you want to
> >>>> be thought of as a scientist and so should do the things that
> >>>> scientists do.
> >>> Hey idiot....V_ab is calculated from a measured incoming frequency.
> >>> Gee you are stupid.
> >> But, Seto, you have *never* been able to calculate anything! What's
> >> the time dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
> >> orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL.
> >> Why can't your theory come up with the answer?
> > Fucking idiot....the equation for time dilation in a gravitational
> > field is as follows:
> > Delta(Tab)=Delta(Taa)*sqrt((1-(Vab)^2/c'^2))
> > Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> Well, can you calculate an answer or not? What *is* the time
> dilation of an earth satellite clock in a circular earth
> orbit (eccentricity = 0) at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?
an you calculate time dilation of an satellite using GR with the
following data:
Vab=1000 m/s
C'=290,000 km/s
My guess is that you can't.
On May 20, 9:04 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 19, 3:37 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good, then you should be able to calculate time dilation because
> > you've given values for V_ab and c' and then that's all you should
> > need to calculate time dilation in an equation.
> > So what is the number when you do that, Mr. Seto?
> > [time dilation] = ?
> Delta(Tab)= Delta(Taa)*squrt(1-(Vab)^2/c'^2)
Mr. Seto, I don't see numbers that you have put in a calculator to
come up with a number out.
> > Scientists can certain do the calculation when they use v instead of
> > V_ab and c instead of c'. So you should be able to do it using V_ab
> > instead of v and c' instead of c.
> No you can't....no v in a gravitational field
I don't understand this statement at all, Mr. Seto. v stands for
speed. Do you think that speed does not exist for things in a
gravitational field? When I drive to the grocery store I am in a
gravitational field but there is a meter on my dashboard that reminds
me of my speed. If I drop a cup it falls because of gravity and it
certainly has a speed by the time it hits the floor.
> If you want to be thought of as a
> > scientist then you should show that you can do this calculation isn't
> > that so?
> I don't have to show an idiot like you anythinbg.
No of course, Mr. Seto, you don't have to do anything you don't want
to do. It's just that scientists do calculations and you don't. It's
really just a matter of choice on your part. Either be a scientist and
do calculations or do not do calculations and not be a scientist.
> On May 19, 3:40 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 19, 7:44 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > > Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> > > resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> > > 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> > > 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> > > 3. Poineer 10 problem.
> > > 4. the observed horizon problem.
> > > 5. The observed horizon problem
> > Well then, Mr. Seto, surely you can do this and actually show how the
> > modified math resolves any one of these issues. So let's pick one --
> > the Pioneer 10 problem. Do the calculation with your modified math and
> > show that the Pioneer problem goes away. This is a critical claim you
> > make about your theory and so it would be important for you to punch
> > the numbers in to demonstrate that it can do what GR cannot do. GR
> > expects a different number for Pioneer 10 acceleration than what is
> > observed. So show the number and the calculation that produces it for
> > your theory.
Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
the above problems go away. There is mention in there of explaining
the Pioneer anomaly by positing the existence of some particles but
there is no calculation in that paper of any kind as to how much
acceleration you would expect from those particles and to show that
this prediction matches the observed anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer. So you sent me on a wild goose chase to your own paper which
did not do what you said it would do.
Then you used foul language and called me names for what you did.
This does not appear to be the behavior of a scientist, Mr. Seto. I
hope you can understand that.
All that is needed to calculate the time dilation of an earth
satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude of
212 km above MSL, is the mass of the earth and orbital altitude,
both easily measured.
I repeat: *can you or can you not* derive the time dilation of an
earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0)
at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?
If you know general relativity, as you claim you do, you would be
shoving the correct time dilation answer down my throat.
On May 21, 8:26 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 9:04 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > On May 19, 3:37 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good, then you should be able to calculate time dilation because
> > > you've given values for V_ab and c' and then that's all you should
> > > need to calculate time dilation in an equation.
> > > So what is the number when you do that, Mr. Seto?
> > > [time dilation] = ?
> > Delta(Tab)= Delta(Taa)*squrt(1-(Vab)^2/c'^2)
> Mr. Seto, I don't see numbers that you have put in a calculator to
> come up with a number out.
Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
to get time dilation.
You are wasting my time.
> > > Scientists can certain do the calculation when they use v instead of
> > > V_ab and c instead of c'. So you should be able to do it using V_ab
> > > instead of v and c' instead of c.
> > No you can't....no v in a gravitational field
> I don't understand this statement at all, Mr. Seto. v stands for
> speed. Do you think that speed does not exist for things in a
> gravitational field? When I drive to the grocery store I am in a
> gravitational field but there is a meter on my dashboard that reminds
> me of my speed. If I drop a cup it falls because of gravity and it
> certainly has a speed by the time it hits the floor.
> > If you want to be thought of as a
> > > scientist then you should show that you can do this calculation isn't
> > > that so?
> > I don't have to show an idiot like you anythinbg.
> No of course, Mr. Seto, you don't have to do anything you don't want
> to do. It's just that scientists do calculations and you don't. It's
> really just a matter of choice on your part. Either be a scientist and
> do calculations or do not do calculations and not be a scientist.
> On May 19, 11:08 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > On May 19, 3:40 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 19, 7:44 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > Hey idiot...the modified SR math can be used to replace GR math and
> > > > resolves the following problematic observations encountered by GR:
> > > > 1. Accelerated expansion of the univserse.
> > > > 2. galactic rotational curve problem.
> > > > 3. Poineer 10 problem.
> > > > 4. the observed horizon problem.
> > > > 5. The observed horizon problem
> > > Well then, Mr. Seto, surely you can do this and actually show how the
> > > modified math resolves any one of these issues. So let's pick one --
> > > the Pioneer 10 problem. Do the calculation with your modified math and
> > > show that the Pioneer problem goes away. This is a critical claim you
> > > make about your theory and so it would be important for you to punch
> > > the numbers in to demonstrate that it can do what GR cannot do. GR
> > > expects a different number for Pioneer 10 acceleration than what is
> > > observed. So show the number and the calculation that produces it for
> > > your theory.
> Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> the above problems go away.
Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>There is mention in there of explaining
> the Pioneer anomaly by positing the existence of some particles but
> there is no calculation in that paper of any kind as to how much
> acceleration you would expect from those particles and to show that
> this prediction matches the observed anomalous acceleration of
> Pioneer. So you sent me on a wild goose chase to your own paper which
> did not do what you said it would do.
> Then you used foul language and called me names for what you did.
> This does not appear to be the behavior of a scientist, Mr. Seto. I
> hope you can understand that.- Hide quoted text -
On May 21, 9:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All that is needed to calculate the time dilation of an earth
> satellite clock in a circular earth orbit at an altitude of
> 212 km above MSL, is the mass of the earth and orbital altitude,
> both easily measured.
> I repeat: *can you or can you not* derive the time dilation of an
> earth satellite clock in a circular earth orbit (eccentricity = 0)
> at an altitude of 212 km above MSL?
You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
show you how to use your data using IRT.
Vab=1000 m/s
c'=2900000 km/s
If you can't shut the fuck up.
On May 21, 9:14 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
> to get time dilation.
> You are wasting my time.
So I gather, Mr. Seto, that you don't want to do the calculations that
scientists do and you want other people to do those calculations. That
is certainly your choice, Mr. Seto, since you clearly don't want to be
a scientist.
On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> > there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> > the above problems go away.
> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
Did he do calculations outside that paper, Mr. Seto? Yes of course he
did. All scientists do. It appears you are looking at one paper and
using that to give you guidance about what you are obligated to do. I
would guess, Mr. Seto, that you do not have much practiced experience
at being a scientist.
On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
> show you how to use your data using IRT.
> Vab=1000 m/s
> c'=2900000 km/s
> If you can't shut the fuck up.
Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
the place. They are published in papers complete with numbers and
graphs with applications to specific cases. They are in books complete
with numbers and graphs with application to specific cases. But the
only source of IRT calculations would be you and what you provide. If
you want the results of GR calculations and the details of how to do
them and the numbers and graphs that result you go to the places where
they are. Where would people go to get your calculation details and
numbers and graphs and application to specific examples? There is
none. That is the problem. There just isn't any demonstration of your
theory actually working -- anywhere.
> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
understood Einstein's papers.
> On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> Mr. Seto, if you will look at just one of the papers where he
> publishes about general relativity which you can find here:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theor... > you will see that at the end of section 22 he actually calculates some
> numbers including how much in arcseconds light will be deflected
> around the sun and by how much the perihelion of Mercury should be
> found to advance. You will see that there are actual numbers there
> that come from him. This is what all scientists do. You should too.
> If you discover that this is all very frustrating to you and that it
> makes you angry to have to calculate numbers then you will end up
> using foul language and calling people names. That is not how
> scientists act, Mr. Seto.
On May 21, 11:53 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:20 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > > Mr. Seto, I took your invitation and I read your paper. Unfortunately
> > > there were no calculations in it with numbers that showed that any of
> > > the above problems go away.
> > Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> Did he do calculations outside that paper, Mr. Seto?
>Yes of course he
> did. All scientists do. It appears you are looking at one paper and
> using that to give you guidance about what you are obligated to do. I
> would guess, Mr. Seto, that you do not have much practiced experience
> at being a scientist.
On May 21, 11:58 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
> > show you how to use your data using IRT.
> > Vab=1000 m/s
> > c'=2900000 km/s
> > If you can't shut the fuck up.
> Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
> the place.
No idiot....calculations with Vab and c' using GR equations....gee you
are stupid.
>They are published in papers complete with numbers and
> graphs with applications to specific cases. They are in books complete
> with numbers and graphs with application to specific cases. But the
> only source of IRT calculations would be you and what you provide. If
> you want the results of GR calculations and the details of how to do
> them and the numbers and graphs that result you go to the places where
> they are. Where would people go to get your calculation details and
> numbers and graphs and application to specific examples? There is
> none. That is the problem. There just isn't any demonstration of your
> theory actually working -- anywhere.
On May 21, 11:50 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 9:14 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
> > to get time dilation.
> > You are wasting my time.
> So I gather, Mr. Seto, that you don't want to do the calculations that
> scientists do and you want other people to do those calculations. That
> is certainly your choice, Mr. Seto, since you clearly don't want to be
> a scientist.
The point is: I don't want to waste time on an idiot like you.
> > Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
> understood Einstein's papers.
Hey idiot....derivation is not calculations. In my paper I derive all
my math based on a physical model.
> > Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
> understood Einstein's papers.
Can you calculate the time dilation for a clock at rest in Mars using
GR? Show your caulations.
> > Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
> understood Einstein's papers.
Hey idiot he didn't do any calculations....the value of c was not
defined at that time.
> On May 21, 11:50 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:14 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Hey idiot plug in any number you want for Vab and c' into the equation
>>> to get time dilation.
>>> You are wasting my time.
>> So I gather, Mr. Seto, that you don't want to do the calculations that
>> scientists do and you want other people to do those calculations. That
>> is certainly your choice, Mr. Seto, since you clearly don't want to be
>> a scientist.
> The point is: I don't want to waste time on an idiot like you.
This is typical of the way Seto concludes a USENET thread. Ken
let me steer you to some good information:
> On May 21, 11:58 am, LaLALa<lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:23 am, "ken...@att.net"<seto...@att.net> wrote:
>>> You show me time dilation with the following data using GR and I will
>>> show you how to use your data using IRT.
>>> Vab=1000 m/s
>>> c'=2900000 km/s
>>> If you can't shut the fuck up.
>> Mr. Seto, the problem is this. The calculations using GR are all over
>> the place.
> No idiot....calculations with Vab and c' using GR equations....gee you
> are stupid.
>> They are published in papers complete with numbers and
>> graphs with applications to specific cases. They are in books complete
>> with numbers and graphs with application to specific cases. But the
>> only source of IRT calculations would be you and what you provide. If
>> you want the results of GR calculations and the details of how to do
>> them and the numbers and graphs that result you go to the places where
>> they are. Where would people go to get your calculation details and
>> numbers and graphs and application to specific examples? There is
>> none. That is the problem. There just isn't any demonstration of your
>> theory actually working -- anywhere.
> On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 9:20 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
>> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
>> understood Einstein's papers.
> Hey idiot....derivation is not calculations. In my paper I derive all
> my math based on a physical model.
Seto -- You're telling us that calculations using symbols
representing variables and constants are not calculations???
> On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 9:20 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
>> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
>> understood Einstein's papers.
> Can you calculate the time dilation for a clock at rest in Mars using
> GR? Show your caulations.
GR is not required to calculate time dilation for a clock at rest in
Mars! Whatever made you thing GR was an appropriate tool for such a
calculation?
> On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 9:20 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
>> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
>> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
>> understood Einstein's papers.
> Hey idiot he didn't do any calculations....the value of c was not
> defined at that time.
Wow! No wonder you don't understand relativity, Seto!
> > On May 21, 12:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/21/12 9:20 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> >>> Do you see any calculations in Einstein's 1905 paper? The answer: NO.
> >> Seto, in the last of Einstein's 1905 papers, Einstein *derives*
> >> E = mc^2. You probably don't know this because you've never read/
> >> understood Einstein's papers.
> > Can you calculate the time dilation for a clock at rest in Mars using
> > GR? Show your caulations.
> GR is not required to calculate time dilation for a clock at rest in
> Mars! Whatever made you thing GR was an appropriate tool for such a
> calculation?
