Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #591734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-09-14 06:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-12-07 17:42 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 23:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jugbn9Fs1teU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596293 |
On 11/26/2022 10:47 PM, Volney wrote: > On 11/26/2022 12:40 PM, whodat wrote: >> On 11/26/2022 11:25 AM, Volney wrote: > >>> You keep forgetting Einstein disavowed the aether so he couldn't do >>> that even if he wanted to. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know how many times I've posted this link to the physics >> newsgroups. Please pay attention to Einstein's words (translated to >> English.) > <snip> > > He did write that, well after the 1905 paper. In the 1905 paper Einstein > did explicitly write that the aether was "superfluous" and wouldn't be > used. Read its first page. So every part of the 1905 paper does not > involve the aether in any way whatsoever. Meanwhile Ken tries to change > what Einstein wrote in 1905 to involve an aether. > > What you refer to appears to be acknowledgement that the vacuum supports > what we now call fields., It is definitely not the "lumeriferous aether" > concept popular in 1905, which supported the transmission of light by > mechanical vibrations of itself. A substance simultaneously extremely > stiff (to propagate light at c) and so thin it did not resist the orbits > of planets over billions of years. Either you read and understand what Einstein said in his 1920 address or you do not. He said it and that's not up for argument. There is an awful lot of nitpicking in these newsgroups, much of it defensive of postures taken, some inadvisably. All I can do is refer to the underlying facts. I am not going to argue about this with anyone because that's a sport around here that never achieves anything, and I wish you well with your take on the issues. If you ever experience a growth shift in that posture please embrace it, I am not a person who needs to know. In the meantime it is now a focus you've applied and with that, you are likely to have positive experiences as a result. My point is now made (again.) > Plus many many other contradictory properties. N.B. Discontinuity among models is a feature of the state of the art. It usually takes some personal adjustment to come to grips with that. Best to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tm0j0a$1o87q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596297 |
On 11/27/2022 12:42 AM, whodat wrote: > On 11/26/2022 10:47 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 11/26/2022 12:40 PM, whodat wrote: >>> On 11/26/2022 11:25 AM, Volney wrote: >> >>>> You keep forgetting Einstein disavowed the aether so he couldn't do >>>> that even if he wanted to. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't know how many times I've posted this link to the physics >>> newsgroups. Please pay attention to Einstein's words (translated to >>> English.) >> <snip> >> >> He did write that, well after the 1905 paper. In the 1905 paper >> Einstein did explicitly write that the aether was "superfluous" and >> wouldn't be used. Read its first page. So every part of the 1905 paper >> does not involve the aether in any way whatsoever. Meanwhile Ken tries >> to change what Einstein wrote in 1905 to involve an aether. >> >> What you refer to appears to be acknowledgement that the vacuum >> supports what we now call fields., It is definitely not the >> "lumeriferous aether" concept popular in 1905, which supported the >> transmission of light by mechanical vibrations of itself. A substance >> simultaneously extremely stiff (to propagate light at c) and so thin >> it did not resist the orbits of planets over billions of years. > > Either you read and understand what Einstein said in his 1920 address or > you do not. He said it and that's not up for argument. There is an awful > lot of nitpicking in these newsgroups, much of it defensive of postures > taken, some inadvisably. All I can do is refer to the underlying facts. > > I am not going to argue about this with anyone because that's a sport > around here that never achieves anything, and I wish you well with > your take on the issues. If you ever experience a growth shift in that > posture please embrace it, I am not a person who needs to know. In the > meantime it is now a focus you've applied and with that, you are likely > to have positive experiences as a result. My point is now made (again.) > > > Plus many many other contradictory properties. > > N.B. Discontinuity among models is a feature of the state of the art. It > usually takes some personal adjustment to come to grips with that. > > Best to you. > Who peed in your cheerios this morning? My discussion was with Seto and his claim that Einstein's 1905 paper was using the lumeniferous aether with a reference frame of its own when Einstein explicitly disavowed it in that paper. Ken keeps going back to that contradictory idea. ALL my statements of not using any aether are regarding the 1905 paper, not the later 1920 statement. In 1920 Einstein had already come up with GR and was probably pondering electromagnetism or other "action at a distance". So he made that aether statement as a sort-of change in mind. I say sort of in that it's still not the lumeniferous aether of the late 1800s. In modern science, *nobody* uses or mentions aether except as historical, not even the Einstein 1920 aether. They do have various fields, electromagnetic fields, gluon fields, Higgs fields etc. If someone wants to call them "aether" that's fine but it's not the near-infinitely stiff but infinitely non-interfering substance somehow pervading the vacuum needed to transmit light, with its own reference frame. Instead modern fields are a property of space rather than some miraculous substance within it like air on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb4c554d-0593-4055-84f0-e586e570930dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596336 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:57:48 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 11/27/2022 12:42 AM, whodat wrote: > > On 11/26/2022 10:47 PM, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/26/2022 12:40 PM, whodat wrote: > >>> On 11/26/2022 11:25 AM, Volney wrote: > >> > >>>> You keep forgetting Einstein disavowed the aether so he couldn't do > >>>> that even if he wanted to. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't know how many times I've posted this link to the physics > >>> newsgroups. Please pay attention to Einstein's words (translated to > >>> English.) > >> <snip> > >> > >> He did write that, well after the 1905 paper. In the 1905 paper > >> Einstein did explicitly write that the aether was "superfluous" and > >> wouldn't be used. Read its first page. So every part of the 1905 paper > >> does not involve the aether in any way whatsoever. Meanwhile Ken tries > >> to change what Einstein wrote in 1905 to involve an aether. > >> > >> What you refer to appears to be acknowledgement that the vacuum > >> supports what we now call fields., It is definitely not the > >> "lumeriferous aether" concept popular in 1905, which supported the > >> transmission of light by mechanical vibrations of itself. A substance > >> simultaneously extremely stiff (to propagate light at c) and so thin > >> it did not resist the orbits of planets over billions of years. > > > > Either you read and understand what Einstein said in his 1920 address or > > you do not. He said it and that's not up for argument. There is an awful > > lot of nitpicking in these newsgroups, much of it defensive of postures > > taken, some inadvisably. All I can do is refer to the underlying facts. > > > > I am not going to argue about this with anyone because that's a sport > > around here that never achieves anything, and I wish you well with > > your take on the issues. If you ever experience a growth shift in that > > posture please embrace it, I am not a person who needs to know. In the > > meantime it is now a focus you've applied and with that, you are likely > > to have positive experiences as a result. My point is now made (again.) > > > > > Plus many many other contradictory properties. > > > > N.B. Discontinuity among models is a feature of the state of the art. It > > usually takes some personal adjustment to come to grips with that. > > > > Best to you. > > > Who peed in your cheerios this morning? > > My discussion was with Seto and his claim that Einstein's 1905 paper was > using the lumeniferous aether with a reference frame of its own when > Einstein explicitly disavowed it in that paper. Ken keeps going back to the same properties as LET and that's why SR have the same math as LET > that contradictory idea. Hey stupid Mike, Einstein diid use the aether frame to formulate his SR. That's why SR has the same postulates as LET and that's why SR has the same math as LET. > > ALL my statements of not using any aether are regarding the 1905 paper, > not the later 1920 stament. > > In 1920 Einstein had already come up with GR and was probably pondering > electromagnetism or other "action at a distance". So he made that aether > statement as a sort-of change in mind. I say sort of in that it's still > not the lumeniferous aether of the late 1800s. In modern science, > *nobody* uses or mentions aether except as historical, not even the > Einstein 1920 aether. They do have various fields, electromagnetic > fields, gluon fields, Higgs fields etc. If someone wants to call them > "aether" that's fine but it's not the near-infinitely stiff but > infinitely non-interfering substance somehow pervading the vacuum needed > to transmit light, with its own reference frame. Instead modern fields > are a property of space rather than some miraculous substance within it > like air on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 23:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6695da3e-8b31-4a06-b19e-d8c07f29f958n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596293 |
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 05:46:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/26/2022 12:40 PM, whodat wrote: > > On 11/26/2022 11:25 AM, Volney wrote: > > >> You keep forgetting Einstein disavowed the aether so he couldn't do > >> that even if he wanted to. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how many times I've posted this link to the physics > > newsgroups. Please pay attention to Einstein's words (translated to > > English.) > <snip> > > He did write that, well after the 1905 paper. In the 1905 paper Einstein > did explicitly write that the aether was "superfluous" and wouldn't be > used. Read its first page. So every part of the 1905 paper does not > involve the aether in any way whatsoever. Renaming a thing is not enough to get rid of it, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 08:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c31267c-356c-4e9b-aa57-e6062f564556n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596254 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 11/26/2022 9:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:10:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/25/2022 7:45 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:50:10 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 11/25/2022 10:32 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 2:51:56 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/24/2022 9:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Einstein renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. > >>>>>>>> Once again, Einstein disavowed the aether, meaning he didn't use it *at > >>>>>>>> all*. He never renamed anything. He used Galileo's inertial frame (from > >>>>>>>> before when anyone even came up with the idea of an aether) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Stupid Mike, then How come an inertial frame have the exclusive properties (postulates) > >>>>>>> of the aether frame?????? > >>>>>> Because it doesn't, Stupid Ken. That's just crap you made up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hey stupid Mike, so Einstein got rid of the aether frame by calling it "an inertial frame" > >>>> No, he did not, Stupid Ken. > >>> Yes he did.... that's why SR has the same math as LET. > >> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >> inertial frame. Especially when he said the aether was "superfluous" and > >> the inertial frame concept preceded the aether theory. > > > > Idiot; Einstein knew that there is no such ting as an en he frame on earth. > Stupid Ken, what is an "en he " frame? You're drunk again, right? > Anyway, you didn't answer my question: > >> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >> inertial frame. > > He wanted to use the aether frame to develop his SR math. > You're putting words in his mouth. He disavowed the aether, so he > couldn't do that even if he "wanted" to.e inertial frame. > Idiot, He made the inertial frame have the exact properties of the aether frame.. Why are you so stupid? > > > but he can't do that. > Correct, he disavowed the aether. > > So he first denied the existence of the aether frame, Then he replace the aether > > with the hypothetical inertial frame because it is also not detectable on earth. > Inertial frames are very detectable. > > You guys are so naive and let Einstein led you to a false direction for 110 tears. > 110 tears? Are you crying because Einstein's SR works and your Idiot MM > is a failure? SR is incomplete and it is a subset of IRT. Gee you are so stupid. > >> > > > >> You make no sense: > > Pot calling kettle black. > >> 1) The inertial frame concept came first; > > It doesn't matter, the inertial frame doesn't exist on earth. > Sure it does under SR. > > Similarly the aether frame > > frame is not possible to detect. > Because there's no such thing. > > That's why Einstein knew that it is safe to call > > the aether frame as an inertia frame. > You keep forgetting Einstein disavowed the aether so he couldn't do that > even if he wanted to. > >> 2) Einstein explicitly disavowed the e is not theory; > You're still drunk, Ken. > >> > > Of course, he wanted to replace thee aether frame with an inertial frame. > If he wanted to do that, he wouldn't have disavowed the aether, would he. > >> > >> 3) He never said what you claim he said; > >> > > Can you give us the diffe.rences between an inertial frame and the aether frame? > Sure, the aether frame doesn't exist while the inertial frame does. > >> > >> 4) There are infinitely many inertial frames, which one is the "aether > >> frame"? > >> > > There is no inertial frame exists on earth > There are infinitely many inertial frames on earth. Which one is the > aether frame? No, there is only one inertial frame and that is the aether frame. Gee get some new knowledge on science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 21:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tm6g1f$2chj5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596370 |
On 11/28/2022 11:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 11/26/2022 9:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:10:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2022 7:45 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:50:10 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2022 10:32 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 2:51:56 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/24/2022 9:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. >>>>>>>>>> Once again, Einstein disavowed the aether, meaning he didn't use it *at >>>>>>>>>> all*. He never renamed anything. He used Galileo's inertial frame (from >>>>>>>>>> before when anyone even came up with the idea of an aether) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, then How come an inertial frame have the exclusive properties (postulates) >>>>>>>>> of the aether frame?????? >>>>>>>> Because it doesn't, Stupid Ken. That's just crap you made up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey stupid Mike, so Einstein got rid of the aether frame by calling it "an inertial frame" >>>>>> No, he did not, Stupid Ken. >>>>> Yes he did.... that's why SR has the same math as LET. >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an >>>> inertial frame. Especially when he said the aether was "superfluous" and >>>> the inertial frame concept preceded the aether theory. >>> >>> Idiot; Einstein knew that there is no such ting as an en he frame on earth. >> Stupid Ken, what is an "en he " frame? You're drunk again, right? >> Anyway, you didn't answer my question: >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an >>>> inertial frame. >>> He wanted to use the aether frame to develop his SR math. >> You're putting words in his mouth. He disavowed the aether, so he >> couldn't do that even if he "wanted" to.e inertial frame. >> > Idiot, He made the inertial frame have the exact properties of the aether frame.. > Why are you so stupid? Again, show me where (which paper, speech etc.) Einstein said he tool the properties of the aether frame and created an inertial frame (and which one). And explain how he did so when he disavowed any use of the aether in his 1905 paper. >> >>> but he can't do that. >> Correct, he disavowed the aether. >>> So he first denied the existence of the aether frame, Then he replace the aether >>> with the hypothetical inertial frame because it is also not detectable on earth. >> Inertial frames are very detectable. >>> You guys are so naive and let Einstein led you to a false direction for 110 tears. >> 110 tears? Are you crying because Einstein's SR works and your Idiot MM >> is a failure? > > SR is incomplete and it is a subset of IRT. Gee you are so stupid. If SR is a subset of IRT, that means IRT agrees with all claims of SR, but has additional claims as well. Do you agree that your Idiotic Relativity Theory agrees with all of SR? >>> There is no inertial frame exists on earth >> There are infinitely many inertial frames on earth. Which one is the >> aether frame? > > No, there is only one inertial frame and that is the aether frame. Gee get some new knowledge on science. There are an infinite number of inertial frames, Stupid Ken. To define an inertial frame, I have an infinite number of choices for the origin location in each of three dimensions (x,y,z). I have an infinite number of choices for the speed of the frame in three dimensions (v_x, v_y, v_z) as long as the total speed is less than c. I also have an infinite number of choices for the angles of the x axis (theta, phi) even though theta is limited to the range (0, 2pi) and phi from (-pi/2, pi/2), but there are an infinite number of angles within those limits. How many aether frames are there in your mad world? 1? How can the infinite number of inertial frames all be the same as this one aether frame?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 22:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74be9cbe-f83a-4f20-9146-50ed0efd624dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596477 |
On Wednesday, 30 November 2022 at 03:44:02 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/28/2022 11:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/26/2022 9:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:10:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 11/25/2022 7:45 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:50:10 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/25/2022 10:32 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 2:51:56 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/24/2022 9:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. > >>>>>>>>>> Once again, Einstein disavowed the aether, meaning he didn't use it *at > >>>>>>>>>> all*. He never renamed anything. He used Galileo's inertial frame (from > >>>>>>>>>> before when anyone even came up with the idea of an aether) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, then How come an inertial frame have the exclusive properties (postulates) > >>>>>>>>> of the aether frame?????? > >>>>>>>> Because it doesn't, Stupid Ken. That's just crap you made up. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey stupid Mike, so Einstein got rid of the aether frame by calling it "an inertial frame" > >>>>>> No, he did not, Stupid Ken. > >>>>> Yes he did.... that's why SR has the same math as LET. > >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >>>> inertial frame. Especially when he said the aether was "superfluous" and > >>>> the inertial frame concept preceded the aether theory. > >>> > >>> Idiot; Einstein knew that there is no such ting as an en he frame on earth. > >> Stupid Ken, what is an "en he " frame? You're drunk again, right? > >> Anyway, you didn't answer my question: > >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >>>> inertial frame. > >>> He wanted to use the aether frame to develop his SR math. > >> You're putting words in his mouth. He disavowed the aether, so he > >> couldn't do that even if he "wanted" to.e inertial frame. > >> > > Idiot, He made the inertial frame have the exact properties of the aether frame.. > > Why are you so stupid? > Again, show me where (which paper, speech etc.) Einstein said he tool > the properties of the aether frame and created an inertial frame (and > which one). And explain how he did so when he disavowed any use of the > aether in his 1905 paper. > >> > >>> but he can't do that. > >> Correct, he disavowed the aether. > >>> So he first denied the existence of the aether frame, Then he replace the aether > >>> with the hypothetical inertial frame because it is also not detectable on earth. > >> Inertial frames are very detectable. > >>> You guys are so naive and let Einstein led you to a false direction for 110 tears. > >> 110 tears? Are you crying because Einstein's SR works and your Idiot MM > >> is a failure? > > > > SR is incomplete and it is a subset of IRT. Gee you are so stupid. > If SR is a subset of IRT, that means IRT agrees with all claims of SR, > but has additional claims as well. Do you agree that your Idiotic > Relativity Theory agrees with all of SR? > >>> There is no inertial frame exists on earth > >> There are infinitely many inertial frames on earth. Which one is the > >> aether frame? > > > > No, there is only one inertial frame and that is the aether frame. Gee get some new knowledge on science. > There are an infinite number of inertial frames, Stupid Ken. To define > an inertial frame, I have an infinite number of choices for the origin > location in each of three dimensions (x,y,z). Define one then, stupid Mike. Do you still believe that your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is a consequence of Newtonian physics, BTW?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d96476a-fc94-4a76-a336-95df6d1b033cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596477 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:44:02 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 11/28/2022 11:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/26/2022 9:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:10:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 11/25/2022 7:45 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:50:10 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/25/2022 10:32 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 2:51:56 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/24/2022 9:20 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:18:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. > >>>>>>>>>> Once again, Einstein disavowed the aether, meaning he didn't use it *at > >>>>>>>>>> all*. He never renamed anything. He used Galileo's inertial frame (from > >>>>>>>>>> before when anyone even came up with the idea of an aether) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, then How come an inertial frame have the exclusive properties (postulates) > >>>>>>>>> of the aether frame?????? > >>>>>>>> Because it doesn't, Stupid Ken. That's just crap you made up. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey stupid Mike, so Einstein got rid of the aether frame by calling it "an inertial frame" > >>>>>> No, he did not, Stupid Ken. > >>>>> Yes he did.... that's why SR has the same math as LET. > >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >>>> inertial frame. Especially when he said the aether was "superfluous" and > >>>> the inertial frame concept preceded the aether theory. > >>> > >>> Idiot; Einstein knew that there is no such ting as an en he frame on earth. > >> Stupid Ken, what is an "en he " frame? You're drunk again, right? > >> Anyway, you didn't answer my question: > >>>> Show us exactly where he said that he called some aether frame an > >>>> inertial frame. > >>> He wanted to use the aether frame to develop his SR math. > >> You're putting words in his mouth. He disavowed the aether, so he > >> couldn't do that even if he "wanted" to.e inertial frame. > >> > > Idiot, He made the inertial frame have the exact properties of the aether frame.. > > Why are you so stupid? > Again, show me where (which paper, speech etc.) Einstein said he tool > the properties of the aether frame and created an inertial frame (and > which one). And explain how he did so when he disavowed any use of the > aether in his 1905 paper. > >> > >>> but he can't do that. > >> Correct, he disavowed the aether. > >>> So he first denied the existence of the aether frame, Then he replace the aether > >>> with the hypothetical inertial frame because it is also not detectable on earth. > >> Inertial frames are very detectable. > >>> You guys are so naive and let Einstein led you to a false direction for 110 tears. > >> 110 tears? Are you crying because Einstein's SR works and your Idiot MM > >> is a failure? > > > > SR is incomplete and it is a subset of IRT. Gee you are so stupid. > If SR is a subset of IRT, that means IRT agrees with all claims of SR, > but has additional claims as well. Do you agree that your Idiotic > Relativity Theory agrees with all of SR? > >>> There is no inertial frame exists on earth > >> There are infinitely many inertial frames on earth. Which one is the > >> aether frame? > > > > No, there is only one inertial frame and that is the aether frame. Gee get some new knowledge on science. > There are an infinite number of inertial frames, Stupid Ken. To define > an inertial frame, I have an infinite number of choices for the origin > location in each of three dimensions (x,y,z). I have an infinite number > of choices for the speed of the frame in three dimensions (v_x, v_y, > v_z) as long as the total speed is less than c. I also have an infinite > number of choices for the angles of the x axis (theta, phi) even though > theta is limited to the range (0, 2pi) and phi from (-pi/2, pi/2), but > there are an infinite number of angles within those limits. How many > aether frames are there in your mad world? 1? How can the infinite > number of inertial frames all be the same as this one aether frame????? Idiot, there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. The rest frame of the aether is qualified asbserver an inertial frame, But no object or observer is at the rest frame of the aether. A LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the aether, so the LET math was developed on the basis of that assumption. An SR observer assumes that he is in an inertial frame (just another name for the aether frame) That's why SR copied the LET math. An IRT observer assumes that all objects are moving in the aether. But he doesn't know if the observed frame is moving faster to slower in the aether than himself. SO he includes both possibilities. That's why an IRT observer predicts an observed clock can accumulate clock seconds at a faster or slower rate......but only one of these predictions is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Barsetti <erre@battaete.tr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tm800o$2ib7j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596504 |
Ken Seto wrote: > Idiot, there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. > The rest frame of the aether is qualified asbserver an inertial frame, > But no object or observer is at the rest frame of the aether. > A LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the aether, so the LET > math was developed on the basis of that assumption. you don't need to be at rest to do the math, you fucking uneducated american oldfart idiot. That's why you have tools in mathematics. Embedded into the manifold. Your country bombed by two nuclear bombs, you forgot everything about. How convenient. These guys wants to kill you because you are too many. And the money taken from the *death_panels* can be used given to 10 teachers, or doctors, to kill other humans, which are too many.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-01 05:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f76d18e-9e83-4fba-8e8b-5a74fc261509n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596506 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Lee Barsetti wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > Idiot, there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. > > The rest frame of the aether is qualified asbserver an inertial frame, > > But no object or observer is at the rest frame of the aether. > > A LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the aether, so the LET > > math was developed on the basis of that assumption. > you don't need to be at rest to do the math, you fucking uneducated > american oldfart idiot. That's why you have tools in mathematics. Embedded > into the manifold. Your country bombed by two nuclear bombs, you forgot > everything about. How convenient. These guys wants to kill you because you > are too many. And the money taken from the *death_panels* can be used > given to 10 teachers, or doctors, to kill other humans, which are too > many. Fucking idiot, if you are not at rest in the aether then the SR postulates is not valid.to devlop the SR math (the LET math) .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cornelius Evangelista <ciie@snecil.ta> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-01 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmaftf$2qlp1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596610 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> you don't need to be at rest to do the math, you fucking uneducated >> american oldfart idiot. That's why you have tools in mathematics. >> Embedded into the manifold. Your country bombed by two nuclear bombs, >> you forgot everything about. How convenient. These guys wants to kill >> you because you are too many. And the money taken from the >> *death_panels* can be used given to 10 teachers, or doctors, to kill >> other humans, which are too many. > > Fucking idiot, if you are not at rest in the aether then the SR > postulates is not valid.to devlop the SR math (the LET math) . that's why you are absent in mathematics, fucking stupid. You don't know what tensors are, nor systems of partial differential equations, schemes, models, boundary conditions, constraints, fuck you, domains, subdomains, governing equations, multiphysics, interfaces, fuck you even more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-02 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1dd2ff8b-1d4c-4960-933e-cc58c6cef037n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596612 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:06:27 AM UTC-5, Cornelius Evangelista wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > >> you don't need to be at rest to do the math, you fucking uneducated > >> american oldfart idiot. That's why you have tools in mathematics. > >> Embedded into the manifold. Your country bombed by two nuclear bombs, > >> you forgot everything about. How convenient. These guys wants to kill > >> you because you are too many. And the money taken from the > >> *death_panels* can be used given to 10 teachers, or doctors, to kill > >> other humans, which are too many. > > > > Fucking idiot, if you are not at rest in the aether then the SR > > postulates is not valid.to devlop the SR math (the LET math) . > that's why you are absent in mathematics, fucking stupid. You don't know > what tensors are, nor systems of partial differential equations, schemes, > models, boundary conditions, constraints, fuck you, domains, subdomains, > governing equations, multiphysics, interfaces, fuck you even more. Moron, you (the SR observer) developed the math by assuming that the observed clock is doing the motion.......so 444 you you develop the math on that basis and that's why your math only show that the observed clock is running slower than your clock.. In real life, you don't know if the observed clock is running slower or faster than your clock. So you must include both possibilities. That's why IRT math predicts that the observed clock is running slower or faster than your clock but only one of these predictions is correct. Why can't you see that the SR math is incomplete? Are you really that stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-02 15:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <juug3bF2pt8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596671 |
On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; 2. Explain how he comes to have a Japanese name if he is not Japanese (as he has insisted many times). In that connection I'm a bit sceptical of his claimed year of birth, 1936: is he sure it wasn't 1937? -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-03 06:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0d7a282-a35a-45ef-8189-4fe1e72fcef6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596673 |
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not > > 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new theory. Gee you are stupid. > > 2. Explain how he comes to have a Japanese name if he is not Japanese > (as he has insisted many times). In that connection I'm a bit sceptical > of his claimed year of birth, 1936: is he sure it wasn't 1937? Idiot, Seto is a Chinese name. The Japanese took the name when they moved to Japan. Are you really that stupid? > > > > -- > Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly > in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-03 15:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jv14nfFf5muU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596748 |
On 2022-12-03 14:17:54 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto said: > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not >> >> 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; > > Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new > theory. Gee you are stupid. In your puff pieces on the web you claim to have penned publications in Science and Nature. I haven't been able to find those. What are the publication details? Or was it just a lie? Do you want to join Pentcho Valev as one of the resident liars in this group? -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-04 03:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmhl2v$3kbfr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596748 |
On 12/3/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not >> >> 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; > > Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new theory. Gee you are stupid. Are you telling us that you lied about your publications in Science and Nature? Why am I not surprised?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-04 13:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b9d03c2-9042-46c1-ac84-97c18923967cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596801 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 3:17:38 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 12/3/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not > >> > >> 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; > > > > Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new theory. Gee you are stupid. > Are you telling us that you lied about your publications in Science and > Nature? Why am I not surprised? I don't know what you are talking about. My book is on-line for every body to see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-04 17:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmj732$3otlr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596822 |
On 12/4/2022 4:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 3:17:38 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 12/3/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>> On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not >>>> >>>> 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; >>> >>> Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new theory. Gee you are stupid. >> Are you telling us that you lied about your publications in Science and >> Nature? Why am I not surprised? > > I don't know what you are talking about. > My book is on-line for every body to see. > Do you have publications in Science and Nature? Yes or no. If no, you lied about that. If yes, provide references to which issue(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 06:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a4c0426-1ef8-4e21-9591-7eb188839108n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596823 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:31:02 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 12/4/2022 4:31 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 3:17:38 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 12/3/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:23:43 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>>> On 2022-12-02 14:02:17 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto did not > >>>> > >>>> 1. Provide references for his claimed publications in Science and Nature; > >>> > >>> Idiot, MM is a new theory. Why do I need to prove references for a new theory. Gee you are stupid. > >> Are you telling us that you lied about your publications in Science and > >> Nature? Why am I not surprised? > > > > I don't know what you are talking about. > > My book is on-line for every body to see. > > > Do you have publications in Science and Nature? Yes or no. If no, you > lied about that. If yes, provide references to which issue(s). I don't have publications in Science or Nature. if some body in their publication mentioned my work in their publication that's not my false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Domingo Bicchieri <cmii@ioermh.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmo7ip$adqf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596901 |
Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:31:02 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> Do you have publications in Science and Nature? Yes or no. If no, you >> lied about that. If yes, provide references to which issue(s). > > I don't have publications in Science or Nature. if some body in their > publication mentioned my work in their publication that's not my false. ohh my butt, the *Putina* is shown driving a mercedes, along his people giving their life for the global capitalism accomplishments. Filmed driving a mercedes, you piece of shit. Tomorrow packing your shit and be moving to america, as a "dissident".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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