Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? |
| Date | 2022-12-09 16:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvhqdsF1jvbU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <BwPr9QV6owI31onnMoCB7d00cXg@jntp> <55e09d07-6cc0-4eaa-b510-a8f665b75ae2n@googlegroups.com> <tmvnbm$16ko3$1@dont-email.me> <tn07rb$1ash4$1@dont-email.me> <tn099r$1b2aj$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 12/9/2022 3:28 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > Trolidan7 wrote: > >>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, > you >>>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no >>>> existence. >>> >>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You >>> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? >> >> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established >> 'ether' properties. >> If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking >> a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something >> true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. >> But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. >> If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does >> that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it >> is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'? > > you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or properly > derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another domain. > Different from science. Here's some proofs: > > Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over > Decorated Hero & Spy > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi Still with the gay thing that has nothing to do with the physics discussion at hand.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 16:22 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-09 13:03 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:28 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 16:16 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-10 00:27 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 21:45 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@autala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:17 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:14 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-10 04:03 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Vincenzo Longo <olcv@ovgingln.og> - 2022-12-20 23:57 +0000
csiph-web