Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Rosnet, Jul 25, 2005.
Mac, at this point I cant muster a coherent thought. wine.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'll not add insult to injury by saying I noticed but only wish you a good hangover. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've explained the GPS system to you in enough detail for you to understand it. Still don't get it?
Sorry James R but this is a bad joke. I raised the GPS issue and described how it worked, with respect to the ECI. 2Inq... has explained GPS in great detail to you and has explained why you are wrong.
You are the one that doesn't seem to get it. GPS supports an absolute physical underpinning to relativity. Not the SR view which includes reciprocity.
Relativity is based on respective motion and not relative velocity.
Whatever, MacM. Come back when you have support for your assertions.
Unfortunately for you James R, I have defeated your every effort to obscure the truth and slander me. Your now continued string of non-physics responses with these kinds of simplistic unsupported innuendos just adds the icing on the cake. Your are finished here. You now no longer have any credability regarding the issue of SRT.
Credibility according to who? You and your masses of followers here?
Whatever, MacM. Can't you see you're not getting anywhere?
In another thread, I am ready to strangle Aer and MacM. Is there a way I can make their computers electrocute them?
Anyone looking for a physics type rebuttal or discussion. They aren't getting it from him, they are getting unsupported and false innuendo only. The issues I have rasied are still there unanswered by physics.
And we see what I am talking about.
Calm down SL. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. I hate you all.
He went to go find Jesus in the religion forum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I posted only because you requested an explanation. And how can it be the same as what you said, when you were referring to the new setup, and I, to the old one? And what you said was wrong, because there is no meaning in it 'looking' inertial.
Nevermind! I was discussing superluminal's setup which shows the objects moving from each other's rest frames even though it has been decided that these rest frames are not inertial.
Separate names with a comma.