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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #591734 > unrolled thread

SR is just another name for LET.

Started byKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
First post2022-09-14 06:45 -0700
Last post2022-12-07 17:42 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 173 — 28 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-14 06:45 -0700
    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Flex Capitani <eaia@ipiafipi.ip> - 2022-09-14 16:04 +0000
    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-09-16 08:52 -0500
      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-09-16 13:39 -0700
        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-16 23:42 -0400
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-16 23:33 -0500
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-17 17:37 -0400
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-09-16 23:50 -0700
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 12:45 -0700
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-17 17:34 -0400
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 14:58 -0700
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-18 14:28 -0400
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-19 04:58 -0700
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-19 14:22 -0400
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 07:14 -0700
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:34 +0000
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 07:41 -0700
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:49 +0000
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 07:59 -0700
                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 15:12 +0000
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 07:50 -0700
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-22 15:12 -0400
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-22 15:08 -0400
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 18:55 -0700
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 06:46 -0700
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 07:54 -0800
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 07:34 -0700
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Jeiker Carboni <iree@eoaijoje.br> - 2022-09-22 14:43 +0000
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-22 15:19 -0400
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 18:50 -0700
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 08:22 -0700
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-22 15:22 -0400
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 05:52 -0700
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Chau Barbieri <ihue@ricrahhr.ce> - 2022-09-17 13:20 +0000
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 13:45 -0700
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 06:02 -0700
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ibes Confortola <osar@oblaealt.fe> - 2022-09-18 13:41 +0000
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-18 14:32 -0400
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-19 17:52 +0000
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 12:18 -0700
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-17 17:44 -0400
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 05:24 -0700
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 06:20 -0700
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ibes Confortola <osar@oblaealt.fe> - 2022-09-18 14:34 +0000
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-09-18 14:59 +0000
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ibes Confortola <osar@oblaealt.fe> - 2022-09-18 15:37 +0000
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 10:02 -0700
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-18 14:45 -0400
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 12:08 -0700
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-18 15:22 -0400
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 12:32 -0700
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ibes Confortola <osar@oblaealt.fe> - 2022-09-18 21:07 +0000
                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:31 -0700
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-09-19 14:29 -0400
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ibes Confortola <osar@oblaealt.fe> - 2022-09-18 21:17 +0000
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 17:35 -0700
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 20:46 -0700
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-19 02:14 -0700
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-19 16:48 +0000
                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 18:44 -0700
                          Faking Russian Propaganda (was Re: SR is just another name for LET.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-18 22:05 -0500
                            Re: dementia hit whodat wrote Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-19 16:58 +0000
                              Re: dementia hit whodat wrote whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-19 13:00 -0500
                              Re: Stupid Fake Russian Troll (was Re: dementia hit whodat wrote) Justus Basurto <trso@subsrbob.au> - 2022-09-19 18:43 +0000
                                Re: Stupid Fake Russian Troll (was Re: dementia hit whodat wrote) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-09-19 14:48 -0500
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 07:33 -0800
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ismael Stabile <tebs@sebiiiie.sm> - 2022-11-06 15:51 +0000
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 08:16 -0800
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-11-10 20:55 +0000
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 06:54 -0800
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-13 14:06 -0600
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 07:57 -0800
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:19 -0500
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 10:08 -0800
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 02:03 -0500
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 06:41 -0800
                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 12:21 -0500
                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-16 18:57 +0100
                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-16 15:31 -0500
                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 12:49 -0800
                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 05:33 -0800
                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-17 14:22 -0500
                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 05:14 -0800
                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-18 14:48 +0100
                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-18 12:54 -0500
                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 10:41 -0800
                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 08:21 -0800
                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Jules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os> - 2022-11-20 17:53 +0000
                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-20 19:03 +0100
                                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 14:00 -0800
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 10:46 -0800
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-06 07:10 -0800
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-06 13:39 -0600
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Everly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re> - 2022-11-06 19:52 +0000
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-07 07:21 -0800
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 08:55 -0800
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 05:52 -0800
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-21 18:47 -0500
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 08:11 -0800
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 08:21 -0800
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 02:48 -0500
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 06:18 -0800
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 12:18 -0500
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 09:25 -0800
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-24 06:20 -0800
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 17:03 +0000
                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-25 02:52 -0500
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 01:07 -0800
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-25 14:27 +0000
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-25 14:37 +0000
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-25 18:45 -0500
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-25 15:00 +0000
                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 07:32 -0800
                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-25 18:50 -0500
                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 16:45 -0800
                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-26 01:10 -0500
                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-26 06:15 -0800
                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-26 12:25 -0500
                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-26 11:40 -0600
                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-26 23:47 -0500
                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-26 23:42 -0600
                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-27 15:57 -0500
                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 08:40 -0800
                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-26 23:21 -0800
                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 08:30 -0800
                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-29 21:44 -0500
                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 22:34 -0800
                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 07:59 -0800
                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> - 2022-11-30 16:22 +0000
                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 05:53 -0800
                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Cornelius Evangelista <ciie@snecil.ta> - 2022-12-01 15:06 +0000
                                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 06:02 -0800
                                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-02 15:23 +0100
                                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-03 06:17 -0800
                                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-03 15:27 +0100
                                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 03:17 -0500
                                                          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-04 13:31 -0800
                                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 17:30 -0500
                                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 06:07 -0800
                                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Domingo Bicchieri <cmii@ioermh.ca> - 2022-12-06 20:10 +0000
                                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-06 16:34 -0500
                                                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 16:15 -0800
                                                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-07 00:57 -0500
                                            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-03 18:09 -0500
                                              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-03 17:00 -0800
                                                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 17:40 -0500
                                                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 06:17 -0800
                                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Domingo Bicchieri <cmii@ioermh.ca> - 2022-12-06 19:16 +0000
                                                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-09 15:06 -0500
                                                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 20:45 +0000
                                                        Re: SR is just another name for LET. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 16:12 -0600
                      Re: SR is just another name for LET. "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-11-25 17:20 +0000
      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-09-17 06:17 -0700
        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Chau Barbieri <ihue@ricrahhr.ce> - 2022-09-17 13:26 +0000
      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Chau Barbieri <ihue@ricrahhr.ce> - 2022-09-17 16:41 +0000
      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-18 05:43 -0800
        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-18 12:57 -0500
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 08:11 -0800
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 21:38 -0500
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 05:58 -0800
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 06:02 -0800
                Re: SR is just another name for LET. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-21 19:22 -0500
                  Re: SR is just another name for LET. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-22 12:31 +0100
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 07:26 -0800
                    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 08:50 -0800
    Re: SR is just another name for LET. "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 08:27 -0800
    Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-06 10:12 +0100
      Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 06:22 -0800
        Re: SR is just another name for LET. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-06 21:04 +0100
        Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-06 22:16 +0100
          Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-06 22:27 +0100
            Re: SR is just another name for LET. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:24 -0800
              Re: SR is just another name for LET. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-07 17:42 +0100

Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#595565

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-17 05:33 -0800
Message-ID<470f3f23-612f-4516-a67d-52fc0dbce252n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595523
On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/16/2022 12:57 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > On 2022-11-16 17:21:19 +0000, Volney said: 
> > 
> >> On 11/16/2022 9:41 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> 
> >>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> >> 
> >> No, it is not. Your Muddle Mechanics is merely a collection of 
> >> worthless assertions with no science behind it. 
> > 
> > Notice, however, that it's now called Idiot MM -- as good a name as any, 
> > up there with Muddle Mechanics.
> Sorry about that, Stupid Ken! I missed that you renamed your Muddle 
> Mechanics to Idiot MM!
Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics.  I use the shor form (MM) to save 
the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

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

#595583

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2022-11-17 14:22 -0500
Message-ID<tl61lf$2n4n9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#595565
On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/16/2022 12:57 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-16 17:21:19 +0000, Volney said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2022 9:41 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. Your Muddle Mechanics is merely a collection of
>>>> worthless assertions with no science behind it.
>>>
>>> Notice, however, that it's now called Idiot MM -- as good a name as any,
>>> up there with Muddle Mechanics.
>> Sorry about that, Stupid Ken! I missed that you renamed your Muddle
>> Mechanics to Idiot MM!
> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics.  I use the shor form (MM) to save
> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it 
was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on.

 >>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.

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

#595616

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-18 05:14 -0800
Message-ID<724e923e-7539-4eaa-b676-1f8722014c59n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595583
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 11/16/2022 12:57 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >>> On 2022-11-16 17:21:19 +0000, Volney said: 
> >>> 
> >>>> On 11/16/2022 9:41 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> No, it is not. Your Muddle Mechanics is merely a collection of 
> >>>> worthless assertions with no science behind it. 
> >>> 
> >>> Notice, however, that it's now called Idiot MM -- as good a name as any, 
> >>> up there with Muddle Mechanics. 
> >> Sorry about that, Stupid Ken! I missed that you renamed your Muddle 
> >> Mechanics to Idiot MM! 
> > Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form (MM) to save 
> > the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it 
> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on.
> >>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.

I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now on......right?

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

#595621

FromAthel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr>
Date2022-11-18 14:48 +0100
Message-ID<jtpgohFd7m2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#595616
On 2022-11-18 13:14:56 +0000, Ken Seto ("Idiot MM is a valid TOE") said:

> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form 
>>> (MM) to save
>>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so 
>>> fucking stupid.
>> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it
>> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on.
>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
> 
> I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now 
> on......right?

Your designation of Volney is an insult. Your designation of your own 
theory is not; it's just a realistic assessment of its worth.

-- 
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

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

#595638

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2022-11-18 12:54 -0500
Message-ID<tl8grp$302m5$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#595616
On 11/18/2022 8:14 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form (MM) to save
>>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it
>> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on.
>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
> 
> I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now on......right?

What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own 
nonsense "Idiot MM". Since you called your nonsense "Idiot MM", it will 
be known as "Idiot MM" from now on, because it it YOUR nonsense, and you 
named it.

>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.

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

#595640

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-18 10:41 -0800
Message-ID<dcd6333e-1d5a-4292-8800-cf10e03ba0ban@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595638
On Friday, 18 November 2022 at 18:54:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 8:14 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> 
> >>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form (MM) to save 
> >>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid. 
> >> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it 
> >> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on. 
> >>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> > 
> > I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now on......right?
> What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own 
> nonsense "Idiot MM".

He didn't, you know that, stupid Mike, you're just as
honest as you're smart. And samely your fellow idiots.

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

#595766

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-20 08:21 -0800
Message-ID<dd3e7eb1-4fa1-49c9-890d-32f000e4bb8dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595638
On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 8:14 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> 
> >>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form (MM) to save 
> >>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so fucking stupid. 
> >> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it 
> >> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on. 
> >>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> > 
> > I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now on......right?
> What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own 
> nonsense "Idiot MM". Since you called your nonsense "Idiot MM", it will 
> be known as "Idiot MM" from now on, because it it YOUR nonsense, and you 
> named it.
> >>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
Idiot, I missed a coma after I called you an idiot. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

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

#595772

FromJules Scotti <ujsl@ocjssuis.os>
Date2022-11-20 17:53 +0000
Message-ID<tldpii$3ig62$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#595766
Ken Seto wrote:

> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own
>> nonsense "Idiot MM". Since you called your nonsense "Idiot MM", it will
>> be known as "Idiot MM" from now on, because it it YOUR nonsense, and
>> you named it.
>> >>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
> Idiot, I missed a coma after I called you an idiot. Gee you are so
> fucking stupid.

absolutely, finally good news. Why it takes so long time with such good 
news. It should have been done months ago since the cacapialist nazist 
coup detat 2014. These modrefaka khakhole nazis were producing jets and 
airplanes. Fuck you, putina.

Russia targets Ukrainian aircraft engine plant 
https://%72%74.com/russia/566873-aircraft-engine-plant-strike/

The assembly line in the city of Zaporozhye has been destroyed in a high-
precision airstrike 

it don't need to be *high_precision*. Just destroy it. Amazing.

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

#595774

FromAthel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr>
Date2022-11-20 19:03 +0100
Message-ID<jtv8gbF9fgsU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#595766
On 2022-11-20 16:21:24 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said:

> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 8:14 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form 
>>>>> (MM) to save
>>>>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so 
>>>>> fucking stupid.
>>>> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it
>>>> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on.
>>>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
>>> 
>>> I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now 
>>> on......right?
>> What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own
>> nonsense "Idiot MM". Since you called your nonsense "Idiot MM", it will
>> be known as "Idiot MM" from now on, because it it YOUR nonsense, and you
>> named it.
>>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE.
> Idiot, I missed a coma after I called you an idiot. Gee you are so 
> fucking stupid.

So now you are blaming Volney (and me, I suppose) for your mistake?

In the future, when you say something especially crazy, are we supposed 
to think you meant something else, and try to guess what you meant?


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

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

#595800

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-20 14:00 -0800
Message-ID<9a09bac4-027e-498b-adb8-c815c6f49e92n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595774
On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 19:04:00 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-20 16:21:24 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said: 
> 
> > On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 11/18/2022 8:14 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:22:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: 
> >>>> On 11/17/2022 8:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>>> Stupid Mike, I didn't rename Model Model Mechanics. I use the shor form 
> >>>>> (MM) to save 
> >>>>> the trouble typing the full name in full every time. Gee you are so 
> >>>>> fucking stupid. 
> >>>> But you called it "Idiot MM" earlier in this thread when you claimed it 
> >>>> was a valid TOE. So it will be called "Idiot MM" from now on. 
> >>>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> >>> 
> >>> I called you a fucking idiot. So you are a fucking idiot from now 
> >>> on......right? 
> >> What you call me is just your own opinion. But you called your own 
> >> nonsense "Idiot MM". Since you called your nonsense "Idiot MM", it will 
> >> be known as "Idiot MM" from now on, because it it YOUR nonsense, and you 
> >> named it. 
> >>>>>>>> Idiot MM is a valid TOE. 
> > Idiot, I missed a coma after I called you an idiot. Gee you are so 
> > fucking stupid. 
> 
> So now you are blaming Volney (and me, I suppose) for your mistake? 
> 
> In the future, when you say something especially crazy, are we supposed 
> to think you meant something else, and try to guess what you meant? 

Of course, noone should expect from those like you
any honesty; Ken is an idiot to do.

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

#595387

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-14 10:46 -0800
Message-ID<4fcd1793-0149-45db-9a4b-c01f0ffc3296n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595374
On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 11:19:53 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 10:57 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 3:06:17 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> 
> >>> Its an Aether in denial..... period. The reality is, physicists are 
> >>> just too shit scared to use the word Aether because of the negative 
> >>> connotations. 
> >> No. The word "aether" implies a physical medium in which light is 
> >> mechanical waves, and it has a definite rest frame. 
> > Yes the E-Matrix is a physical medium and material S-particles moving within it give rise to 
> > the electron and up-quarks that started the universe..
> Nobody cares about your assertions. This "aether" is an obsolete concept.
Current assumption of quantum field is the biggest assertion.of physics. It leads to 110 years of failure to find a unified theory.

> >> In QFT, photons are 
> >> quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field, which are nothing at 
> >> all like mechanical oscillations. 
> > How is the field being excited if it is not material?
> Why would it need to be material?

If the quantum  field is not material, what is being excited?

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

#594859

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-06 07:10 -0800
Message-ID<2d424dec-9b52-406c-a4ca-02c6db673f01n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#591864
On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> >> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. 
> >> 
> >>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] 
> >> 
> >> Tom Roberts 
> > 
> > You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts. 
> > 
> > Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY that Poincaré did (6 months before).
> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> using the aether at all. 

But he used the aether frame to develop the SR math and that's why SR has the same math as LET.
Think about it.....the SR postulates only possible for an observer at rest in the aether. Einstein rename the aether frame as an inertial frame  and you physicists are so dumb to accept his nonsense.
BTW, there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. Only the observer at rest in the aether can claim the SR postulates.
> 
> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct. 
> 
> <snip blithering> inertial frame an

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

#594881

FromTom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date2022-11-06 13:39 -0600
Message-ID<15ednWLF5aHhkPX-nZ2dnZfqlJxg4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#594859
On 11/6/22 9:10 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be
>> using the aether at all.
> 
> But he used the aether frame to develop the SR math 

Nonsense! Apparently you have never actually read AND UNDERSTOOD his 
1905 paper. In it he explicitly starts with an arbitrary inertial frame. 
In that paper there is no mention of "ether" except in the introduction 
where he states it "will prove to be superfluous".

Tom Roberts

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

#594883

FromEverly Segreti <ille@leysgsei.re>
Date2022-11-06 19:52 +0000
Message-ID<tk9394$38vfj$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#594881
Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/6/22 9:10 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>> Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be using
>>> the aether at all.
>> 
>> But he used the aether frame to develop the SR math
> 
> Nonsense! Apparently you have never actually read AND UNDERSTOOD his
> 1905 paper. In it he explicitly starts with an arbitrary inertial frame.
> In that paper there is no mention of "ether" except in the introduction
> where he states it "will prove to be superfluous".

most likely his roy_master wrote it, after that. *superfluous* is a complex 
word. They didn't even have *superfluous* in german language, those days.

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

#594919

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-07 07:21 -0800
Message-ID<eff6d7b1-c295-42a1-b3e3-bebb67a113d9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#594881
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/6/22 9:10 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: 
> >> Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> >> using the aether at all. 
> > 
> > But he used the aether frame to develop the SR math
> Nonsense! Apparently you have never actually read AND UNDERSTOOD his 
> 1905 paper. In it he explicitly starts with an arbitrary inertial frame. 
> In that paper there is no mention of "ether" except in the introduction 
> where he states it "will prove to be superfluous". 

Einstein just renamed the ether frame as an arbitrary inertial frame. The fact that the 
SR postulates are the properties of the ether frame as follows:
1. The ether transmit light at a constant speed  c. Therefore any observer at any location 
in the ether will measure the speed of light to be c.
2. Observers at any location in the ether  will have the same laws of physics.  
3. There is no difference between an inertial frame and a LET frame. That's why SR and 
LET have the same math

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

#595379

Frombeda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-14 08:55 -0800
Message-ID<886d7535-fbb5-4f53-b7bc-367eefd96f89n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#594881
Il giorno domenica 6 novembre 2022 alle 20:39:48 UTC+1 Tom Roberts ha scritto:
> On 11/6/22 9:10 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: 
> >> Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> >> using the aether at all. 
> > 
> > But he used the aether frame to develop the SR math
> Nonsense! Apparently you have never actually read AND UNDERSTOOD his 
> 1905 paper. In it he explicitly starts with an arbitrary inertial frame. 
> In that paper there is no mention of "ether" except in the introduction 
> where he states it "will prove to be superfluous". 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Yes, the SR make the ether superfluous, but this doesn't mean that the ether is nonexistent.
Even if you don't realize it , SR model and math implies necessarily the existence of an ether,
in the sense of a local space with physical characteristics, these changeable characteristics makes the
instantaneous properties of light, make the shape of the objects and the changing rate of the clocks.
All the above are absolute aspects of the reality, SR has, an able conjurer, has made a model that rend
the ether superfluous, in its calculus and measurements, only in a relativistic relation between two inertial
moving objects.
But each object on its own is absolute, in all aspects and properties, versus the local ether (ether, that locally summarize, in its physical characteristics, the the effects of the totality of the universe near and far).
Any relative relation between two objects is amongst two absolute objects.
Your witty empirical or heuristically SR is a trap, because its apparent correctness masks the deeper reality that is beyond it:
1) the (instantaneous) absolutness of every physical entity.
2) light speeds, the ruler contractions, the slowing of the clocks, take place, but they are affected also by the material nature of the objects involved
Point two is sold to you for free.
regards
beda

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

#595859

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-21 05:52 -0800
Message-ID<2e9704d4-86c8-4b96-a0d0-c5e67e7b3955n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#591864
On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> >> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. 
> >> 
> >>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] 
> >> 
> >> Tom Roberts 
> > 
> > You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts. 
> > 
> > Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY that Poincaré did (6 months before).
> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> using the aether at all. 
> 
> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct. 
>
But his SR postulates are copied of the properties of the aether. 
> <snip blithering>

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

#595905

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2022-11-21 18:47 -0500
Message-ID<tlh2mf$3tclh$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#595859
On 11/21/2022 8:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether.
>>>>
>>>>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment]
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts.
>>>
>>> Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY that Poincaré did (6 months before).
>> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be
>> using the aether at all.
>>
>> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct.
>>
> But his SR postulates are copied of the properties of the aether.

No, they are not, Stupid Ken. He explicitly stated that he wasn't going 
to use the aether concept at all. Period.

>> <snip blithering>

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

#595931

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-22 08:11 -0800
Message-ID<05a4f650-d71b-4c08-95ba-dc23ca05ce95n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595905
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 8:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> <snip> 
> >>> 
> >>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Tom Roberts 
> >>> 
> >>> You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts. 
> >>> 
> >>> Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY that Poincaré did (6 months before). 
> >> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> >> using the aether at all. 
> >> 
> >> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct. 
> >> 
> > But his SR postulates are copied of the properties of the aether.
> No, they are not, Stupid Ken. He explicitly stated that he wasn't going 
> to use the aether concept at all. Period. 

Stupid Mike, His postulate are the properties of the aether. Why are you so stupid onlyy believe what Einstein said . Why can't you think for yourself?
> 
> >> <snip blithering>

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

#595933

FromKen Seto <setoken47@gmail.com>
Date2022-11-22 08:21 -0800
Message-ID<0981f900-62fc-4d2d-9c1b-03afeab73850n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#595905
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 8:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: 
> >>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> <snip> 
> >>> 
> >>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Tom Roberts 
> >>> 
> >>> You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts. 
> >>> 
> >>> Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY that Poincaré did (6 months before). 
> >> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be 
> >> using the aether at all. 
> >> 
> >> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct. 
> >> 
> > But his SR postulates are copied of the properties of the aether.
> No, they are not, Stupid Ken. He explicitly stated that he wasn't going 
> to use the aether concept at all. Period. 
at stupid?
No stupid Mike, Einstein said that he wasn't going to use the aether at all.......except he use the aether postulates  Are you really that stu[id?
> 
> >> <snip blithering>he

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

Page 5 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