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 | 13 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 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-21 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <873a0ac5-defc-4b80-aaa2-dcc140efedaen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595860 |
On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 14:58:46 UTC+1, seto...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > >> On 11/18/2022 8:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. > > >>>> Only by idiots. > > >>>>> Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether > > >>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. > > >>> > > >>> Einstein's inertial frame is the rest frame of the aether. > > >> No, it is not, otherwise Einstein would have said so. Instead he said > > >> the aether was superfluous and wasn't going to use it at all. The > > >> opposite of your claim. .. > > > > > > Einstein lied......there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. > > Stupid Ken, you cannot have gravitational fields for SR! Einstein hadn't > > even gotten to GR at the time of his 1905 SR paper. So your statement is > > worthless. > So why are you defending Einstein's inertial frame when you know that there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field? Oh, Mike is a fanatic idiot; he will defend whatever gurus will tell him and attack whatever gurus will tell him, without any sense or logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-21 19:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tlh4ng$3thm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595860 |
On 11/21/2022 8:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/18/2022 8:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. >>>>>> Only by idiots. >>>>>>> Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether >>>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's inertial frame is the rest frame of the aether. >>>> No, it is not, otherwise Einstein would have said so. Instead he said >>>> the aether was superfluous and wasn't going to use it at all. The >>>> opposite of your claim. .. >>> >>> Einstein lied......there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. >> Stupid Ken, you cannot have gravitational fields for SR! Einstein hadn't >> even gotten to GR at the time of his 1905 SR paper. So your statement is >> worthless. > > So why are you defending Einstein's inertial frame when you know that there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field? Stupid Ken, once again there is no gravitational field in SR!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-22 12:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q1tj2t.1kq2twn7l3gepN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #595908 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 11/21/2022 8:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 11/18/2022 8:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. > >>>>>> Only by idiots. > >>>>>>> Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether > >>>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein's inertial frame is the rest frame of the aether. > >>>> No, it is not, otherwise Einstein would have said so. Instead he said > >>>> the aether was superfluous and wasn't going to use it at all. The > >>>> opposite of your claim. .. > >>> > >>> Einstein lied......there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. > >> Stupid Ken, you cannot have gravitational fields for SR! Einstein hadn't > >> even gotten to GR at the time of his 1905 SR paper. So your statement is > >> worthless. > > > > So why are you defending Einstein's inertial frame when you know that > > there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field? > > Stupid Ken, once again there is no gravitational field in SR! All SR can say is that Newton's theory of gravity must be wrong, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-22 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <efb5b558-1a78-47ba-b4ea-ec7a91f58004n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595917 |
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 12:31:57 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > On 11/21/2022 8:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > >> On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > >>>> On 11/18/2022 8:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >>>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>> Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. > > >>>>>> Only by idiots. > > >>>>>>> Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether > > >>>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Einstein's inertial frame is the rest frame of the aether. > > >>>> No, it is not, otherwise Einstein would have said so. Instead he said > > >>>> the aether was superfluous and wasn't going to use it at all. The > > >>>> opposite of your claim. .. > > >>> > > >>> Einstein lied......there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. > > >> Stupid Ken, you cannot have gravitational fields for SR! Einstein hadn't > > >> even gotten to GR at the time of his 1905 SR paper. So your statement is > > >> worthless. > > > > > > So why are you defending Einstein's inertial frame when you know that > > > there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field? > > > > Stupid Ken, once again there is no gravitational field in SR! > All SR can say is that Newton's theory of gravity must be wrong, > Well, even if it does, there is no reason to care what it says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-22 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <25cf1953-2ffd-46c2-9549-bc2142d35486n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595917 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 6:31:57 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > On 11/21/2022 8:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 9:38:33 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > >> On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:57:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > > >>>> On 11/18/2022 8:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:52:09 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >>>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>>>>>> Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. > > >>>>>> Only by idiots. > > >>>>>>> Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether > > >>>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Einstein's inertial frame is the rest frame of the aether. > > >>>> No, it is not, otherwise Einstein would have said so. Instead he said > > >>>> the aether was superfluous and wasn't going to use it at all. The > > >>>> opposite of your claim. .. > > >>> > > >>> Einstein lied......there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field. > > >> Stupid Ken, you cannot have gravitational fields for SR! Einstein hadn't > > >> even gotten to GR at the time of his 1905 SR paper. So your statement is > > >> worthless. > > > > > > So why are you defending Einstein's inertial frame when you know that > > > there is no inertial frame in a gravitational field? > > > > Stupid Ken, once again there is no gravitational field in SR! > All SR can say is that Newton's theory of gravity must be wrong, Newton's gravity is wrong because it lack a physical model to explain the physical attraction of gravity. Einstein's gravity is wrong because there is no spacetime curvature exists physically. MM gravity is correct because we found experimentally objects expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-02 08:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1396a2d8-1f53-4140-a1c3-5f4d6cdf48ean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591734 |
Einstein, 1911: " Regarding the theories of Cohn and Lorentz, the following should be noted. The theory of Lorentz deviates from that of Minkowski insofar as a small inaccuracy crept into it, due to the much more difficult method of derivation. In fact, there are no fundamental differences between Minkowski's and Lorentz's theory. " Einstein, "Fundamental Ideas and Methods" (1920): " For this reason, my opinion in 1905 was that one should no longer talk about the ether in physics. But this judgment was too radical, as we shall see in the following considerations on the theory of general relativity. Rather, it is still permissible to assume a space-filling medium whose states may be imagined as electromagnetic fields (and perhaps also as matter). But it is not permissible to attribute to this medium states of motion in every point, like in an analogy to ponderable matter. This ether must not be imagined as consisting of particles whose identity could be traced in time." " Therefore, one can say the ether has been resurrected in the theory of general relativity, even though in a 〈newer〉 more sublime form. " On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:45:37 PM UTC+1, seto wrote: > Every LET observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether. > Every SR observer is assumed to be at rest in the aether > > Every LET observer claims that the speed of light is constant c in the aether. > Every SR observer claims that the speed of light is constant c wrt every SR observer.. > > That's why SR has (copied) the same math as LET. > > Einstein fooled his followers by insisting that there is no aether but the speed of light is constant c wrt all SR observers. > > Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jv8fbkFivi3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #591734 |
On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto asked: > > [ … ] > > > Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and Nature. If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, his best bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages and we need say no more about them. -- Athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 06:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1d7f4b0-fbce-4b33-b947-f4d937c7b053n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596892 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto asked: > > > > > [ … ] > > > > > > Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? > but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and Nature. > > If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, his best > bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages and we need > say no more about them. Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have articles in both of these magazines? > > > -- > Athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 21:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q2k7px.uogsp71e6byf4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #596903 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto asked: > > > > > > > > [ … ] > > > > > > > > > Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? > > but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and Nature. > > > > If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, his best > > bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages and we need > > say no more about them. > > Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have articles > in both of these magazines? So you have been lying about that. Trying to shoot the messenger doesn't add to your credibility, or to respect for your integrity, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 22:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jv9pqaFpabuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596903 |
On 2022-12-06 14:22:59 +0000, Ken Seto said: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto >> asked:>> >> > [ … ] >>> >>> >>> Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? >> but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and >> Nature.>> If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, >> his best> bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages >> and we need> say no more about them. > Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have > articles in both of these magazines? Are you seriously asking us to believe that all this was the unaided work of a researcher for Marquis Who's Who? : > Before embarking on his professional path, Mr. Seto pursued an > education at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario, Canada, earning a > Bachelor of Science in physics and Chemical Engineering in 1962. Beyond > his work responsibilities within the field, he has found success with > his written works, having authored such books as "Model Mechanics: The > Final Theory" in 2016 "The Physics of Absolute Motion (A New Theory of > Everything)" in 1998 and "Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of > Nature" in 1995. Moreover, Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles > published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean > Electrodynamics and EPISTEME. > > In light of his exceptional undertakings, Mr. Seto accrued several > accolades throughout his impressive career. He has obtained two patents > in polymer technology. His renowned Theory of Everything "Model > Mechanics" includes: a unified theory for all the forces (including > gravity), an improved theory of relativity, a new theory of gravity, > called Doppler Theory of Gravity, the discovery of a new fifth force > called the CRE force, and finally a physical explanation for dark > matter and dark energy. In addition to his professional efforts, Mr. > Seto is dedicated to his family, which includes his three children and > his six grandchildren. I find it extremely hard to believe you had nothing to do with it. Are you also so ignorant of how scientific publishing works that you have to subscribe to a journal to publish in it? I have three or four (invited) articles in Nature, but I've never had a subscription. -- 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 | 2022-12-06 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jv9qdnFpe6kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596916 |
On 2022-12-06 21:16:56 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: > On 2022-12-06 14:22:59 +0000, Ken Seto said: > >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>> On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto >>> asked:>> >> > [ … ] >>>> >>>> >>>> Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? >>> but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and >>> Nature.>> If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, >>> his best> bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages >>> and we need> say no more about them. >> Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have >> articles in both of these magazines? > > Are you seriously asking us to believe that all this was the unaided > work of a researcher for Marquis Who's Who? : > >> Before embarking on his professional path, Mr. Seto pursued an >> education at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario, Canada, earning a >> Bachelor of Science in physics and Chemical Engineering in 1962. Beyond >> his work responsibilities within the field, he has found success with >> his written works, having authored such books as "Model Mechanics: The >> Final Theory" in 2016 "The Physics of Absolute Motion (A New Theory of >> Everything)" in 1998 and "Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of >> Nature" in 1995. Moreover, Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles >> published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean >> Electrodynamics and EPISTEME. >> >> In light of his exceptional undertakings, Mr. Seto accrued several >> accolades throughout his impressive career. He has obtained two patents >> in polymer technology. His renowned Theory of Everything "Model >> Mechanics" includes: a unified theory for all the forces (including >> gravity), an improved theory of relativity, a new theory of gravity, >> called Doppler Theory of Gravity, the discovery of a new fifth force >> called the CRE force, and finally a physical explanation for dark >> matter and dark energy. In addition to his professional efforts, Mr. >> Seto is dedicated to his family, which includes his three children and >> his six grandchildren. > > I find it extremely hard to believe you had nothing to do with it. > > Are you also so ignorant of how scientific publishing works that you > have to subscribe to a journal to publish in it? I have three or four > (invited) articles in Nature, but I've never had a subscription. Something I forgot to mention is that the editors of Marquis Who's Who thought your publication record so important that they made a sidebar of it: > Ken H. Seto Seto has penned multiple articles published in such peer > reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean Electrodynamics and > EPISTEME. Are you asking us to believe that you have never read this announcement and haven't asked for a correction to the nonsense claim? > -- 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 | 2022-12-07 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1912bc54-931e-4c14-816a-b7e35c6aa351n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596918 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:27:23 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-12-06 21:16:56 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: > > > On 2022-12-06 14:22:59 +0000, Ken Seto said: > > > >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>> On 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto > >>> asked:>> >> > [ … ] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why are the Einstein followers are so dumb? > >>> but still hasn't provided references to his papers in Science and > >>> Nature.>> If his claims about these in his puff pieces were just a lie, > >>> his best> bet at this point is to delete them from the relevant pages > >>> and we need> say no more about them. > >> Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have > >> articles in both of these magazines? > > > > Are you seriously asking us to believe that all this was the unaided > > work of a researcher for Marquis Who's Who? : > > > >> Before embarking on his professional path, Mr. Seto pursued an > >> education at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario, Canada, earning a > >> Bachelor of Science in physics and Chemical Engineering in 1962. Beyond > >> his work responsibilities within the field, he has found success with > >> his written works, having authored such books as "Model Mechanics: The > >> Final Theory" in 2016 "The Physics of Absolute Motion (A New Theory of > >> Everything)" in 1998 and "Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of > >> Nature" in 1995. Moreover, Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles > >> published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean > >> Electrodynamics and EPISTEME. > >> > >> In light of his exceptional undertakings, Mr. Seto accrued several > >> accolades throughout his impressive career. He has obtained two patents > >> in polymer technology. His renowned Theory of Everything "Model > >> Mechanics" includes: a unified theory for all the forces (including > >> gravity), an improved theory of relativity, a new theory of gravity, > >> called Doppler Theory of Gravity, the discovery of a new fifth force > >> called the CRE force, and finally a physical explanation for dark > >> matter and dark energy. In addition to his professional efforts, Mr. > >> Seto is dedicated to his family, which includes his three children and > >> his six grandchildren. > > > > I find it extremely hard to believe you had nothing to do with it. > > > > Are you also so ignorant of how scientific publishing works that you > > have to subscribe to a journal to publish in it? I have three or four > > (invited) articles in Nature, but I've never had a subscription. > Something I forgot to mention is that the editors of Marquis Who's Who > thought your publication record so important that they made a sidebar > of it: > > > Ken H. Seto Seto has penned multiple articles published in such peer > > reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean Electrodynamics and > > EPISTEME. > Are you asking us to believe that you have never read this announcement > and haven't asked for a correction to the nonsense claim? I have articles in Galilean Electrodynamics and EPISTEME but nothing in Science and Nature. > > -- > > 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 | 2022-12-07 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvbu4eF4no6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596940 |
On 2022-12-07 15:24:55 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE and liar" Seto said: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 4:27:23 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-12-06 21:16:56 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:>> > On >> 2022-12-06 14:22:59 +0000, Ken Seto said:> >> >> On Tuesday, December >> 6, 2022 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >>> On >> 2022-09-14 13:45:35 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto> >>> >> asked:>> >> > [ … ]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Why are the Einstein followers >> are so dumb?> >>> but still hasn't provided references to his papers in >> Science and> >>> Nature.>> If his claims about these in his puff pieces >> were just a lie,> >>> his best> bet at this point is to delete them >> from the relevant pages> >>> and we need> say no more about them.> >> >> Idiot I don't subscribe Nature or science,,,,,so how can I have> >> >> articles in both of these magazines?> >> > Are you seriously asking us >> to believe that all this was the unaided> > work of a researcher for >> Marquis Who's Who? :> >> >> Before embarking on his professional path, >> Mr. Seto pursued an> >> education at Queen's University in Kingston >> Ontario, Canada, earning a> >> Bachelor of Science in physics and >> Chemical Engineering in 1962. Beyond> >> his work responsibilities >> within the field, he has found success with> >> his written works, >> having authored such books as "Model Mechanics: The> >> Final Theory" >> in 2016 "The Physics of Absolute Motion (A New Theory of> >> >> Everything)" in 1998 and "Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of> >> >> Nature" in 1995. Moreover, Mr. Seto has penned multiple articles> >> >> published in such peer reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean> >> >> Electrodynamics and EPISTEME.> >>> >> In light of his exceptional >> undertakings, Mr. Seto accrued several> >> accolades throughout his >> impressive career. He has obtained two patents> >> in polymer >> technology. His renowned Theory of Everything "Model> >> Mechanics" >> includes: a unified theory for all the forces (including> >> gravity), >> an improved theory of relativity, a new theory of gravity,> >> called >> Doppler Theory of Gravity, the discovery of a new fifth force> >> >> called the CRE force, and finally a physical explanation for dark> >> >> matter and dark energy. In addition to his professional efforts, Mr.> >> >> Seto is dedicated to his family, which includes his three children >> and> >> his six grandchildren.> >> > I find it extremely hard to >> believe you had nothing to do with it.> >> > Are you also so ignorant >> of how scientific publishing works that you> > have to subscribe to a >> journal to publish in it? I have three or four> > (invited) articles in >> Nature, but I've never had a subscription. >> Something I forgot to mention is that the editors of Marquis Who's Who> >> thought your publication record so important that they made a sidebar> >> of it:>> > Ken H. Seto Seto has penned multiple articles published in >> such peer >>> reviewed journals as Science, Nature, Galilean Electrodynamics and> > EPISTEME. >> Are you asking us to believe that you have never read this >> announcement> and haven't asked for a correction to the nonsense claim? > > I have articles in Galilean Electrodynamics and EPISTEME but nothing in > Science and Nature. OK, so the claims for articles in Science and Nature were lies, as we deduced. The best thing for you to do now is to admit that, apologize, and have the relevant web pages corrected. Otherwise you can expect them to be mentioned at very opportunity. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web