"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:1172856942.567071.53370@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 9:14 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > A clock which looks like it is moving to an observer, will also
>> > appear to be running slow to that observer. That is #2.
>> > "Moving clock".
>>
>> So the observer is assuming that the relative motion between them is due to
>> the moving clock.
> 
> Wow, you really can't understand this "moving" thing, can you?
> 
> No, the observer is assuming that a clock whose distance
> from him is changing is "moving". Do you have a problem
> with that assumption?


Yes. What a fuckin' stupid assumption, why doesn't the "observer"
assume the clock stands still and He moves? Oh wait... I get it...
the Earth and its royal "observer" is at the centre of the universe, 
Galileo should have been kept locked up, right? 

Copernicus taught you nothing, you ignorant shit.