Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615948 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-24 08:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-28 21:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:27 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 18:30 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:39 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 20:38 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:06 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:25 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 09:56 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 22:47 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 17:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 11:51 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:14 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 02:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 12:06 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 03:18 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:24 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:55 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:28 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-07 15:03 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 23:53 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 21:18 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:13 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 21:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:57 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:25 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 23:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:28 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:50 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 01:03 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:21 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 01:05 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:09 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 07:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:04 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 10:15 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:52 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 19:01 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 01:06 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 23:42 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-15 16:17 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 17:28 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-25 01:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:06 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-24 17:21 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 08:35 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-26 16:15 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 19:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Rasih Taube <eusr@rruietrt.as> - 2023-07-27 16:51 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-27 12:47 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Virgilio Fabri <iivf@valvoffb.af> - 2023-07-27 17:08 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Cortez Granat <enrn@oezarnca.rt> - 2023-07-27 23:04 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 12:57 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 14:25 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-27 20:01 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 21:40 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 08:58 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-28 16:46 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:25 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-28 21:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-29 17:03 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-29 22:38 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 16:07 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-29 23:31 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 21:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:51 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 10:04 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 20:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 22:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Emanuele Babloev <vloe@abeebevb.ab> - 2023-07-30 09:19 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 10:39 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 16:11 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 18:47 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-30 16:54 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 16:30 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Beau Yukhotsky <bteu@hthakbes.yy> - 2023-07-30 20:43 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Foster Bass <bstb@trfbsbss.bf> - 2023-07-30 22:09 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 17:42 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 11:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 20:23 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 11:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:36 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 18:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 22:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:38 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 06:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-31 18:40 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:09 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:20 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-31 20:17 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 23:21 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:07 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 07:09 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:44 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:26 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:35 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:38 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:40 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 23:43 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-01 08:55 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 02:51 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 09:24 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:56 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:54 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-01 11:03 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:30 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 09:07 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 00:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 10:16 +0200
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 01:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-31 10:05 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 08:15 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Edurardo Babadzhanov <aoba@oubraboh.da> - 2023-07-30 20:06 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:25 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Shaun Michudo <hdud@musnmcai.uu> - 2023-07-30 20:18 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 16:29 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Darbel Doich <bhcb@lbadical.cd> - 2023-07-30 22:15 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:17 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:16 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 14:55 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 23:59 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 23:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 10:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-29 14:23 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 13:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:29 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:46 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 19:12 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-25 11:10 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-27 13:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:14 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Bunnie Belokhvostikov <kksb@ubsnonkk.hn> - 2023-07-24 17:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 19:34 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Alekzandr Billevich <ldni@leedahli.ah> - 2023-07-25 10:56 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:05 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 15:11 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-24 20:50 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:26 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 09:08 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 10:20 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-25 14:58 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 13:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:35 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-25 16:15 -0500
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-25 14:31 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:01 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 10:48 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 18:49 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:08 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 22:00 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:37 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Leeroy Babosoff <lolr@orolooof.bo> - 2023-07-26 10:46 +0000
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 07:36 -0700
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 15:19 -0400
Re: The speed of light can't be a universal constant in all frames Parker Nasrutdinov <nkea@roatreru.ue> - 2023-07-28 21:42 +0000
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 19:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kjv4vrF6e7qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617684 |
On 2023-08-14 16:52:12 +0000, Ken Seto said: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, August 7, >> 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:> >> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken >> Seto wrote:> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at> >> 4:57:16 PM UTC-4, >> Volney wrote:> >> On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto> >> wrote:> >>> On >> Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney> >> wrote:> >>>> On >> 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:> >>>>> On Wednesday,> >> August 2, >> 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>>>>> Ken> >> Seto >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at> >> >> 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>> >>>>>>>> This btw is a nice> >> >> and readily available illustration> >>>>>>>> of how a swung heavy> >> >> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,> >>>>>> -Do- have a look at how >> a> >> swung and released hammer actually flies.> >>>>>> Reality, like >> Athel> >> said, agrees with Newton,> >>>>>> and not with your muddle >> mechanics,>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> We are talking about that a single >> attractive force of> >> gravity can't make the moon go around the earth >> for billions of years.>> >> >>>> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.> >> >>>> >>> Stupid Mike Newton> >> didn't prove anything.> >> He most >> certainly did! It is taught in every> >> high school physics class.> >> >> > No he didn't prove anything.> >> Newton most certainly did! It is >> taught in every high school physics>> >> class. Just because you can't >> understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.> >> It> only means your 3rd >> grade math skills are insufficient to> >> understand it.> >> >> >>> He >> provided a formula that gives approximate production.> >> Except for >> relativity corrections from much later, it is EXACT. For> >> low> >> speeds like the moon orbiting the earth, there is practically> >> zero> >> difference between Newton's and Einstein's predictions.> >>> That >> doesn't prove that gravity is as he described.> >> The mathematical >> PROOF he created does prove gravity is as he> >> described.>> If you >> want to show two forces are necessary, you'll need> >> to find an> >> error in Newton's mathematical proof first. With your third> >> grade >> math> skills, good luck with that!> >> > Idiot, only one attractive >> force will not enables the moon go around> > the earth for billions of >> years.> > Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces. >> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.> >> You need to offer some evidence. > No winder you failed math......you can't count too well. I've no idea if it was 10 or 250 -- I didn't count. I have never failed a maths exam. The only exam I've ever failed in 80 years was my first attempt to get a driving licence in the UK. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 01:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubf146$2mmqq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617684 |
On 8/14/2023 12:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said: >> >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at >>>> 4:57:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:> >> On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto >>>> wrote:> >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney >>>> wrote:> >>>> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:> >>>>> On Wednesday, >>>> August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>>>>> Ken >>>> Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at >>>> 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>> >>>>>>>> This btw is a nice >>>> and readily available illustration> >>>>>>>> of how a swung heavy >>>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,> >>>>>> -Do- have a look at how a >>>> swung and released hammer actually flies.> >>>>>> Reality, like Athel >>>> said, agrees with Newton,> >>>>>> and not with your muddle mechanics,> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are talking about that a single attractive force of >>>> gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.> >>>>>>>> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.> >>>> >>> Stupid Mike Newton >>>> didn't prove anything.> >> He most certainly did! It is taught in every >>>> high school physics class.> >> > No he didn't prove anything. >>>> Newton most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics> >>>> class. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. >>>> It> only means your 3rd grade math skills are insufficient to >>>> understand it. >>> >>> >>>>> He provided a formula that gives approximate production. >>>> Except for relativity corrections from much later, it is EXACT. For >>>> low> speeds like the moon orbiting the earth, there is practically >>>> zero> difference between Newton's and Einstein's predictions. >>>>> That doesn't prove that gravity is as he described. >>>> The mathematical PROOF he created does prove gravity is as he >>>> described.>> If you want to show two forces are necessary, you'll need >>>> to find an> error in Newton's mathematical proof first. With your third >>>> grade math> skills, good luck with that! >>> >>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around >>> the earth for billions of years. >>> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces. >> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true. >> You need to offer some evidence. > > No winder you failed math......you can't count too well. Speaking of failing math, who is it here who can't even do 4th grade math? Hint: His initials are K. S.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e7ec885-740e-4a61-9d39-8ed8f2548d0an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617746 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 07:06:18 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/14/2023 12:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >> > >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at > >>>> 4:57:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:> >> On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto > >>>> wrote:> >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney > >>>> wrote:> >>>> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:> >>>>> On Wednesday, > >>>> August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>>>>> Ken > >>>> Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at > >>>> 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >>> >>>>>>>> This btw is a nice > >>>> and readily available illustration> >>>>>>>> of how a swung heavy > >>>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,> >>>>>> -Do- have a look at how a > >>>> swung and released hammer actually flies.> >>>>>> Reality, like Athel > >>>> said, agrees with Newton,> >>>>>> and not with your muddle mechanics,> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are talking about that a single attractive force of > >>>> gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.> > >>>>>>>> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.> >>>> >>> Stupid Mike Newton > >>>> didn't prove anything.> >> He most certainly did! It is taught in every > >>>> high school physics class.> >> > No he didn't prove anything. > >>>> Newton most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics> > >>>> class. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. > >>>> It> only means your 3rd grade math skills are insufficient to > >>>> understand it. > >>> > >>> > >>>>> He provided a formula that gives approximate production. > >>>> Except for relativity corrections from much later, it is EXACT. For > >>>> low> speeds like the moon orbiting the earth, there is practically > >>>> zero> difference between Newton's and Einstein's predictions. > >>>>> That doesn't prove that gravity is as he described. > >>>> The mathematical PROOF he created does prove gravity is as he > >>>> described.>> If you want to show two forces are necessary, you'll need > >>>> to find an> error in Newton's mathematical proof first. With your third > >>>> grade math> skills, good luck with that! > >>> > >>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around > >>> the earth for billions of years. > >>> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces. > >> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true. > >> You need to offer some evidence. > > > > No winder you failed math......you can't count too well. > Speaking of failing math, who is it here who can't even do 4th grade > math? Well, the whole of your bunch of idiots is asserting it to be false - as it didn't want to fit the madness of your mad guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64DC0772.2649@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #617752 |
The speed of light is not constant in all frames. It's slowing down , Sir. in all frames, universally. Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db8acf7d-73c8-4280-8891-f7e51f782be3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617848 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The speed of light is not constant in all frames. > > It's slowing down , Sir. > > in all frames, universally. > > > Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere. And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06c9613f-60d9-4f05-8756-e0ee631410bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617852 |
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 02:28:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The speed of light is not constant in all frames. > > > > It's slowing down , Sir. > > > > in all frames, universally. > > > > > > Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere. > And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly? Al, poor trash, when you were provided the p;roof of the inconsistency of your beloved Shit - you've only got angry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 01:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1027233d-b214-49b3-99e1-c6c9dd95f83an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615958 |
On Monday, 24 July 2023 at 17:30:42 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:27:46 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that > >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in > >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second in > >> frame B> > Oc > >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who> > >> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent> > >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for> > >> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......" > As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult. > > I find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut > the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the > stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has been > following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move out > radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do the > experiment. > Do the same experiment in the vacuum of space but leave a small weight on the end of the string to allow it to still be swung in a circle after releasing the rock. Ignoring gravity from any other sources. Under Newton I would assume that the rock would travel in a straight line at a constant speed relative to the Center of the swing rotation axis after being released. But would it travel at a constant speed away from the weighted end of the rotating swinging rope? Or at a variable speed away from the rotating end of the rope?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-24 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b45795e-d0fa-4cc6-9f73-3967525a500bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615951 |
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:44:25 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:27:46 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > > > Why? > > > Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second) > > > that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > > > 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > > > 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > > > Oc > > "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > > claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > > arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > > whatever claptrap he is pushing. > Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......" > > > > > > -- > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016 No argument here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-24 17:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u9mq0h$pms5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615949 |
On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >> Why? >> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock >> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: >> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B >> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B >> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit >> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is >> a universal constant. > > "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > whatever claptrap he is pushing. > Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds in frame B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c7add0d-cb20-4f49-9bb7-50d063f7f4f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615992 |
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > >> Why? > >> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >> a universal constant. > > > > "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > > claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > > arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > > whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > > Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > in frame B. Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-26 16:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u9rust$1j1bf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616036 |
On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: >>> >>>> Why? >>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock >>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: >>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B >>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B >>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit >>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is >>>> a universal constant. >>> >>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who >>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent >>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for >>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. >>> >> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by >> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The >> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time >> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds >> in frame B. > > Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-26 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b316751-bfa9-41f3-bdaa-0888bbeea3e9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616112 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >>> > >>>> Why? > >>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >>>> a universal constant. > >>> > >>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > >>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > >>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > >>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > >>> > >> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > >> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > >> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > >> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > >> in frame B. > > > > Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-26 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dfe7910-c342-4781-852b-afd11ccc5413n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616117 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:27 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > >>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > >>> > > >>>> Why? > > >>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > > >>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > > >>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > > >>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > > >>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > > >>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > > >>>> a universal constant. > > >>> > > >>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > > >>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > > >>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > > >>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > > >>> > > >> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > > >> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > > >> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > > >> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > > >> in frame B. > > > > > > Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > > English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. Light does not require a frame to have its absolute motion. That is its constant it has in dimension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rasih Taube <eusr@rruietrt.as> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9u7ba$337ng$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616118 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:46:27 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> > > Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. >> > English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. >> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you >> just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what >> does SR says. > > Light does not require a frame to have its absolute motion. > That is its constant it has in dimension. are you talking about 𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 or the 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁. You electricians are inconclusive. ‘𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹_𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲’_𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀_–_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻 Kiev lost ten times more troops than Moscow’s military in a recent major battle, Vladimir Putin has said https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/580395-putin-ukraine-bettlefield-losses/ Wondering when Ukronazis will finally understand they are being played by the West? In the end they will have nothing and 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀. It is finished for them. The systematic western brainwashing of ukraine started 1993, 2 generations were indoctrinated 𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 and to be Nazi, 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲_𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶. The result is 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻_2014 and 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗢𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲 and much much more evilness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 12:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u9u72o$1tu5p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616117 |
On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: >>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock >>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: >>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B >>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B >>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit >>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is >>>>>> a universal constant. >>>>> >>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who >>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent >>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for >>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. >>>>> >>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by >>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The >>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time >>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds >>>> in frame B. >>> >>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. >> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > > Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgilio Fabri <iivf@valvoffb.af> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9u8b6$1u800$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616138 |
Volney wrote: > On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you >> just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what >> does SR says. > > And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > > For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. you are unfriendly. Motion is always mutual. 𝐏𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧_𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬_𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠_𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧_𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞_𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬_𝐢𝐧_𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 The project would serve as a foundation for further cooperation between Moscow and the continent, the president says https://r%74.com/africa/580404-putin-proposes-africa-russian-language-schools/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cortez Granat <enrn@oezarnca.rt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9ut6d$20cab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616140 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> > For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative >> > motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B >> > will measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have >> > looked this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. >> you are unfriendly. Motion is always mutual. > No. Atoms have there own motions toward or away. > Atoms converge and diverge in dimension... >> 𝐏𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧_𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬_𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠_𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧_𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞_𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬_𝐢𝐧_𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 The project >> would serve as a foundation for further cooperation between Moscow and >> the continent, the president says >> https://r%74.com/africa/580404-putin-proposes-africa-russian-language- schools/ > > Light is changing position in the immaterial of the space. > Atom's are also always changing position... impossible. Immaterial implies the absence of space and time. You cant have light flying there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e7aed6a-5d4d-4cdb-86f6-4f96df9f3779n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616138 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Why? > >>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock > >>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example: > >>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B > >>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B > >>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit > >>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is > >>>>>> a universal constant. > >>>>> > >>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who > >>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent > >>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for > >>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing. > >>>>> > >>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by > >>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The > >>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time > >>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds > >>>> in frame B. > >>> > >>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says. > >> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish. > > > > Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says. > And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and > repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong > because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are). > > For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative > motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will > measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked > this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so. Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments: when A and B are rejoined each will accumulated a different number of seconds. This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than the other. How can mutual time dilation explain this?????? Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different rates during relative motion? .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a495cc89-bba5-4b8f-8966-331981f3f7b3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616152 |
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 1:53:29 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote: > > Suppose a certain "bizzaro" space had only one (attractive) force > > given radially by, say, F = -1/r^2. > You ignored that the F in your equation is a combination of two forces. No. I declared it (posited) to be ONE force. This force only "pulls". Are you saying that one cannot imagine just one force pulling? No answer? Still no answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-27 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c61b5cec-9d3b-4965-8829-048b1bf952d3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616156 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 1:53:29 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote: > > > > Suppose a certain "bizzaro" space had only one (attractive) force > > > given radially by, say, F = -1/r^2. > > You ignored that the F in your equation is a combination of two forces. > > No. I declared it (posited) to be ONE force. This force only "pulls". > Are you saying that one cannot imagine just one force pulling? > No answer? > Still no answer? Light is only a frame in imagination. You cannot ride a wave of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web