Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
- From: "Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:55:58 -0400
PD wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:58 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
The standard is a *local* standard. It does NOT say that all
inertial clocks will show the same elapsed time between two events.
A local only standard is a joke in science.
Well, that's what science uses.
No,
That is what rubber ruler stupid theoretical sciences use.
Science itself still uses "non variable" universal standards.
(not local at all)
No, sir. If you want to find out what a standard in science is, I
suggest you go digging up some stuff from the agency whose job it is
to specify standards for science. In this country, it is NIST.
http://www.nist.gov.
If you think that you are now the keeper of what a scientific standard
should be, then I suggest you apply for a job there. It might even pay
a little better than what you're getting now.
I already pointed out the stupidity of a meter that is based upon
a speed.
You are just too smart to see how stupid it is.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: No wonder they needed a rubber ruler (length contraction)
- Next by Date: Re: No wonder they needed a rubber ruler (length contraction)
- Previous by thread: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"
- Next by thread: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
