Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #585344 > unrolled thread

Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction?

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#585344 — Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction?

John-Erik Persson 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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#585372

On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> John-Erik Persson 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'?

Just interchange the words 'ether' with 'spacetime' and
'relativity' is 'totally disproved'?  Why?  Because the word
'ether' is a horrible bogeybear that somehow disproves
everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585374

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585377

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585387

whodat wrote:

>> 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.

you definitely must be gay, being anally obsessed with gays. I start 
believing nazi nato didn't know what war is all about. Thinking they just 
press some buttons and joysticks, then rearm and redo the action. Totally 
gays. Russia might take over the entire fucking europe, capitalist as it 
is. Its people are hungry in cold, driven by their masters in EU, wanting 
them killed with poison along the last 2 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585400

On 12/9/2022 6:27 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> you definitely must be gay, being anally obsessed with gays. I start
> believing nazi nato didn't know what war is all about. Thinking they just
> press some buttons and joysticks, then rearm and redo the action. Totally
> gays. Russia might take over the entire fucking europe, capitalist as it
> is. Its people are hungry in cold, driven by their masters in EU, wanting
> them killed with poison along the last 2 years.

You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it never
was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these discussions.

Gay and crazy, that's you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585441

whodat wrote:

> On 12/10/2022 1:16 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
>>> keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it
>>> never was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these
>>> discussions. Gay and crazy, that's you.
>> You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you?
>> You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos
>> into these groups.
> 
> Thanks for your take on the matter. I think you grant our gay troll too
> much credit.

you disgusting putrid gay, that's exactly why people are hating you gays, 
trying to fuck others telling them they are gay. You deplorable subhuman 
excrement. All the bad in this world inherently comes from you, gays. You 
have no children, no family, no anything. You see gays head of states in 
capitalist countries. Like america. How many gays they have as head of 
state. I am communist, not capitalist. I am proud to be a *communist*.

keep your stinking mouth shut, you stupid capitalist gay. It's obvious 
that you are gay, and descend along a gay family.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585451

On 12/10/2022 2:17 PM, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/10/2022 1:16 AM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>> You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
>>>> keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it
>>>> never was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these
>>>> discussions. Gay and crazy, that's you.
>>> You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you?
>>> You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos
>>> into these groups.
>>
>> Thanks for your take on the matter. I think you grant our gay troll too
>> much credit.
> 
> you disgusting putrid gay, that's exactly why people are hating you gays,
> trying to fuck others telling them they are gay. You deplorable subhuman
> excrement. All the bad in this world inherently comes from you, gays. You
> have no children, no family, no anything. You see gays head of states in
> capitalist countries. Like america. How many gays they have as head of
> state. I am communist, not capitalist. I am proud to be a *communist*.

A proud communist is a stupid communist. Does that make you feel
special?

> keep your stinking mouth shut, you stupid capitalist gay. It's obvious
> that you are gay, and descend along a gay family.

Ladies and gentlemen readers of these newsgroups. It is clear that these
attempted troll postings are the work product of a child, perhaps in the
early teens, but perhaps even younger.

Whenever our troll is feeling inadequate, as here, anyone can clearly
see the desperation kick in. The latest posting by our gay nymshifting
troll was supposed to make me angry. Instead I feel sorry for it. How
about I get you a nice glass of your favorite soft drink, and a comic
book, or maybe a candy bar or bubblegum?

Class always tells with false bravado close behind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585397

Trolidan7 wrote:

> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>> John-Erik Persson 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.

There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous (light-
carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves.  At first, the 
ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion.  But stellar 
aberration contradicted that.  Then the Fizeau experiment seemed to confirm 
Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially dragged along.  
However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment which indicated 
that if there is an ether it would be motionless, contradicted both previous 
observations.  Then Lorentz and Poincaré came up with length contraction and 
time dilation to fix that.

But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and 
Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether.  
And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too.

So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
seriously.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586240

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The important word “matter” was deleted before submission there,
> probably due to light of insufficient intensity illuminating my solar
> keyboard.
> I meant: “it does not _matter_ (from where you observe)” :'-)

nice to meet you. Here's a paper, describing your gay actor, a short 
khazar gypsy goy, begging for money etc, named "president", making big 
money for the trouble, your *stupidity* and the war, on your food, heat 
and industry deficit. Amazing, the stupid you germans are. Unbelievable.

Zelenskyy： Lifestyles of the Rich & Corrupt
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/kQsEUeJjEieR

moreover, the english pigs, even today, *fucks_your_ass* 75 years away in 
time from the war.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web