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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmoci3$aul7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596901 |
On 12/6/2022 9:07 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > 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. Can you explain why Athel wrote the following? > 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;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 16:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77ff6f1b-b4a5-46bb-a617-43d0285d7668n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596919 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote: > On 12/6/2022 9:07 AM, Ken Seto 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. > Can you explain why Athel wrote the following? > > 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; https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-more-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 00:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmpa00$g2ov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596925 |
On 12/6/2022 7:15 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote: >> On 12/6/2022 9:07 AM, Ken Seto 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. >> Can you explain why Athel wrote the following? >>> 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; > > https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-more-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering Aha! So Seto did lie, in his useless vanity "who's who".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-03 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmgkvk$3em3g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596504 |
On 11/30/2022 10:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > 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, You shouldn't talk about yourself like that. You are at least a moron. > there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. Since frames are a constructed concept, anyone can conjure up as many inertial frames as they want. Especially in SR. Look, there goes one now! > The rest frame of the aether is qualified asbserver an inertial frame, Non sequitur, since Einstein didn't use the aether concept at all in SR. > But no object or > observer is at the rest frame of the aether. Because there is no aether in SR! You may as well discuss the rest frame of unicorns. > A LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the aether, so the LET math was developed > on the basis of that assumption. I personally believe Lorentz worked backwards. He figured out the formulas somehow, he knew that they worked, but didn't know *why* they worked. So he worked backwards, trying to fit his findings with the then-popular aether concept. What he came up with was an unobservable, undetectable aether. Later, Lorentz said Einstein's SR theory was better than his own. > An SR observer assumes that he is in an inertial frame No assumption necessary, it would be a stated starting point. The observer is inertial, or he isn't inertial. > (just another name for the aether frame) Nope. Einstein disavowed the aether concept for his SR work and didn't use the aether concept at all for SR. > That's why SR copied the LET math. It did not copy the LET math, and since there is no aether concept in SR, it wouldn't make any sense to do so. Einstein developed the math independently, it just happens to be the same Lorentz devised, possibly by educated guess. > An IRT observer fails completely, but do go on... > assumes that all objects are moving in the aether. An obsolete concept, but continue... > But he doesn't know > if the observed frame is moving faster to slower in the aether than himself. SO he includes > both possibilities. Which is why your Idiotic Relativity Theory (IRT) is worthless. It cannot even make accurate predictions! > That's why an IRT observer predicts an observed clock can accumulate clock seconds at a faster > or slower rate...... Yes, we know, IRT can't make proper predictions. > but only one of these predictions is correct. Meanwhile, SR makes correct predictions (within its domain) ALL THE TIME.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-03 17:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d90a56e5-d81a-4017-948a-2ba630becb33n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596790 |
On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 11/30/2022 10:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > 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, > You shouldn't talk about yourself like that. You are at least a moron. > > there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. > Since frames are a constructed concept, anyone can conjure up as many > inertial frames as they want. Especially in SR. Look, there goes one now! Idiot, Einstein constructed the inertial frame identical to the aether frame. The inertial frame has all the properties of the aether frame....so calling the aether frame an inertial frame will eliminate the aether frame ? Why are you so stupid? > > The rest frame of the aether is qualified asbserver an inertial frame, > Non sequitur, since Einstein didn't use the aether concept at all in SR. > > But no object or > > observer is at the rest frame of the aether. > Because there is no aether in SR! You may as well discuss the rest frame > of unicorns. > > A LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the aether, so the LET math was developed > > on the basis of that assumption. > I personally believe Lorentz worked backwards. He figured out the > formulas somehow, he knew that they worked, but didn't know *why* they > worked. So he worked backwards, trying to fit his findings with the > then-popular aether concept. What he came up with was an unobservable, > undetectable aether. Later, Lorentz said Einstein's SR theory was > better than his own. > > An SR observer assumes that he is in an inertial frame > No assumption necessary, it would be a stated starting point. The > observer is inertial, or he isn't inertial. > > (just another name for the aether frame) > Nope. Einstein disavowed the aether concept for his SR work and didn't > use the aether concept at all for SR. > > That's why SR copied the LET math. > It did not copy the LET math, and since there is no aether concept in > SR, it wouldn't make any sense to do so. Einstein developed the math > independently, it just happens to be the same Lorentz devised, possibly > by educated guess. > > > An IRT observer > fails completely, but do go on... > > assumes that all objects are moving in the aether. > An obsolete concept, but continue... > > But he doesn't know > > if the observed frame is moving faster to slower in the aether than himself. SO he includes > > both possibilities. > Which is why your Idiotic Relativity Theory (IRT) is worthless. It > cannot even make accurate predictions! You are stupid. > > That's why an IRT observer predicts an observed clock can accumulate clock seconds at a faster > > or slower rate...... > Yes, we know, IRT can't make proper predictions. > > but only one of these predictions is correct. > Meanwhile, SR makes correct predictions (within its domain) ALL THE TIME.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-04 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmj7lk$3ourg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596797 |
On 12/3/2022 8:00 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 11/30/2022 10:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> 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, >> You shouldn't talk about yourself like that. You are at least a moron. >>> there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. >> Since frames are a constructed concept, anyone can conjure up as many >> inertial frames as they want. Especially in SR. Look, there goes one now! > > Idiot, Einstein constructed the inertial frame identical to the aether frame. Which inertial frame (of the infinitely many) is identical to this aether frame? Where is your reference to where and when Einstein does such a thing? Why would Einstein disavow the aether if he was going to use this purported aether frame? > The inertial frame has all the properties of the aether frame.... Which of the infinitely many inertial frames has the same properties as the aether frame? Be specific. What are these properties? > so calling the aether frame an inertial frame will eliminate the aether frame ? No, you are the only one who calls the aether frame an inertial frame. > Why am I so stupid? Good question, why *is* Ken Seto so stupid? >>> assumes that all objects are moving in the aether. >> An obsolete concept, but continue... >>> But he doesn't know >>> if the observed frame is moving faster to slower in the aether than himself. SO he includes >>> both possibilities. >> Which is why your Idiotic Relativity Theory (IRT) is worthless. It >> cannot even make accurate predictions! > > You are stupid. No, that's your job. That's why you are called Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 06:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b38cd51c-023b-47a9-9041-7f393b75ce80n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596824 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:40:55 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 12/3/2022 8:00 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/30/2022 10:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> 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, > >> You shouldn't talk about yourself like that. You are at least a moron. > >>> there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. > >> Since frames are a constructed concept, anyone can conjure up as many > >> inertial frames as they want. Especially in SR. Look, there goes one now! > > > > Idiot, Einstein constructed the inertial frame identical to the aether frame. > Which inertial frame (of the infinitely many) is identical to this > aether frame? Idiot, all inertial frames. That's why all inertial frames have the same properties as all aether frames. In case that you are too stupid .....every location in the aether is an aether frame (an inertial frame). Gee why are you s stupid? Why you take Einstein's words as Gospal? > > Where is your reference to where and when Einstein does such a thing? > > Why would Einstein disavow the aether if he was going to use this > purported aether frame? > > The inertial frame has all the properties of the aether frame.... > Which of the infinitely many inertial frames has the same properties as > the aether frame? Be specific. What are these properties? > > so calling the aether frame an inertial frame will eliminate the aether frame ? > No, you are the only one who calls the aether frame an inertial frame. > > > Why am I so stupid? > > Good question, why *is* Ken Seto so stupid? > >>> assumes that all objects are moving in the aether. > >> An obsolete concept, but continue... > >>> But he doesn't know > >>> if the observed frame is moving faster to slower in the aether than himself. SO he includes > >>> both possibilities. > >> Which is why your Idiotic Relativity Theory (IRT) is worthless. It > >> cannot even make accurate predictions! > > > > You are stupid. > No, that's your job. That's why you are called Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Domingo Bicchieri <cmii@ioermh.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmo4eg$a22k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596902 |
Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:40:55 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> Which inertial frame (of the infinitely many) is identical to this >> aether frame? > Idiot, all inertial frames. That's why all inertial frames have the same > properties as all aether frames. In case that you are too stupid > .....every location in the aether is an aether frame (an inertial > frame). > Gee why are you s stupid? Why you take Einstein's words as Gospal? this only because you never had your anus inside in an well equiped physics laboratory, to know what a measurement is all about. But my friend, the *Putina* is a *traitor* faking a head of state. He is an illegally *WEF* *_young_global_leader_* and his task is to destroy Russia, de_industrialize it into small regions, giving them the *capitalist_west* for free, as benefit from war. Pure liberal capitalism, no investment, no risk, no contract, where people are purposely killed for gain. That's your *mazafaka_Putina* a fucking traitor, which should have been removed from power long ago. My ass, he is shitting on his people. And on the history of his people. hopefully the *_Communist_Party_* will remove this mozafaka throwing him in forced labour camp the rest of his stinking life of traitor. No country in the world like traitors. Fuck, destroying his own energy pipeline, and he is doing NOTHING?? Fuck you, kenseto. You should never forget the two (2) atomic bombs, they killed with, people in your country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tn04g5$1a40a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596902 |
On 12/6/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 5:40:55 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 12/3/2022 8:00 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:09:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2022 10:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> Idiot, >>>> You shouldn't talk about yourself like that. You are at least a moron. >>>>> there is no inertial frame on earth or anywhere. >>>> Since frames are a constructed concept, anyone can conjure up as many >>>> inertial frames as they want. Especially in SR. Look, there goes one now! >>> >>> Idiot, Einstein constructed the inertial frame identical to the aether frame. >> Which inertial frame (of the infinitely many) is identical to this >> aether frame? > Idiot, all inertial frames. How can that be? If an inertial frame centered 1 mile to the left has its x axis pointing northwest is equal to the aether frame, how can an inertial frame centered 98 miles to the right with its x axis pointing down be equal to the aether frame????? > That's why all inertial frames have the same properties as all aether frames. ALL aether frames now? How can THAT be if the aether frame is the rest frame of the aether? Wouldn't it have just one rest frame??? > In case that you are too stupid .....every location in the aether is an aether frame (an inertial frame). Now you confuse locations with frames. Your dementia is advancing rapidly. > Gee why are you s stupid? That's your job, not mine. > Why you take Einstein's words as Gospal? I don't. I see if his science matches reality and isn't self-contradictory (like your Idiot MM is). >> >> Where is your reference to where and when Einstein does such a thing? >> No answer? >> Why would Einstein disavow the aether if he was going to use this >> purported aether frame? No answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tn06p7$18bei$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597116 |
Volney wrote: > On 12/6/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >> Idiot, all inertial frames. > > How can that be? If an inertial frame centered 1 mile to the left has > its x axis pointing northwest is equal to the aether frame, how can an > inertial frame centered 98 miles to the right with its x axis pointing > down be equal to the aether frame????? here you have america, which is capitalist. Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over Decorated Hero & Spy https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 16:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvhq6bF1jvbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597126 |
On 12/9/2022 2:45 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > Volney wrote: > >> On 12/6/2022 9:17 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> Idiot, all inertial frames. >> >> How can that be? If an inertial frame centered 1 mile to the left has >> its x axis pointing northwest is equal to the aether frame, how can an >> inertial frame centered 98 miles to the right with its x axis pointing >> down be equal to the aether frame????? > > here you have america, which is capitalist. > > Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over > Decorated Hero & Spy > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi/ Obsessing about a lesbian is still obsessing about gay. And you don't appreciate that this was an even swap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-25 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GvWdncopP83dZB3-nZ2dnZeNn_fNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #596010 |
"Volney" wrote in message news:tllkl3$dmva$1@dont-email.me... On 11/23/2022 9:18 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 2:48:42 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 11/22/2022 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 11/21/2022 8:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 9/16/2022 4:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/14/22 8:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is complete nonsense, as SR has no aether. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have SHORT MEMORY, Tom Roberts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein got rid of the ether ABSOLUTE reference IN THE SAME WAY >>>>>>> that Poincaré did (6 months before). >>>>>> Wrong. Einstein EXPLICITLY stated his 1905 paper that he wouldn't be >>>>>> using the aether at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> He didn't use it, so the statement "SR has no aether" is correct. >>>>>> >>>>> But his SR postulates are copied of the properties of the aether. >> >>>> No, they are not, Stupid Ken. He explicitly stated that he wasn't going >>>> to use the aether concept at all. Period. >> >>> at stupid? >>> No stupid Mike, Einstein said that he wasn't going to use the aether at >>> all.......except he use the aether postulates >> No, Stupid Ken he didn't. >> > Yes stupid Mike he did. Once again, he disavowed the aether concept. So he could not use any aether postulates. > How could the laws of physics be the same everywhere? >>It is observed to be true and was accepted by physics as true before >>Einstein came along. Yep. > A clock second in different frames have different durations. >Your mistake in believing that is your mistake, not the first postulate >being wrong. >>> physics are the same everywhere. Neso aether involved. The second >>> postulate is that all (inertial) observers measure the speed of light as >> >c. Again no aether involved. He explicitly mentioned he was not using >>> the aether concept. Period.amed the aether frame as an inertial frame. > >> Stupid mike, there is no inertial frame anywhere. >There is, especially in SR. I just have to think them up. Creating >experiments in inertial frames in the real world is difficult, that's all. > Einstein renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. Yep. >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) > Einstein: "The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery." That is, physical hypotheses (mechanisms) are deliberately ignored from the outset, so makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein had no f'ing idea as to how and why observations were as they were, so he gave up trying to know and simply ignored them. Its called stating axioms. Dah.. "We shall take these statements as if true, irrespective as to why". This don't imply that there is no physical reason. A truly empty universe cannot have any physical properties at all. This is trivially obvious. Dah... Straight lines cannot exist in such a universe. The Lorentz metric requires real physical objects to create it. A claim that "space has physical structure" is metaphysical twaddle. A straight line requires real physical rulers to define it. This means real physical objects at all points. Thus the universe cannot be physically empty. Only real physical objects can create the laws of physics, again, truly obvious. Laws of physics are, and can only be, only relations between real physical objects. Without E, c and m, E=m.c^2 cannot exist. Sure, the Aether of Lorentz was wrong, just as the "gravitons" of Le-Sage were wrong. Modern gravitons works quite well, achieving the same EFE. The Aether has simply been renamed for politically correct reasons. To wit: Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/ Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg Time into video 0:31 : "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of nature...?" Time into video 19:30 : "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the universe..." Thus QFs are Aethers in denial. Particles are a "disturbance in a field" according to QFT. Lee Smolin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review "...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." SR demands the block universe. It demands Dr. Who & his TARDIS time travel. It demands the future already exists. QM says it doesn't. SR says clocks don't slow down but that one travels to the future at faster rates. neo-Aethers say clocks actually do slow down, and thus don't contradict QM, the future isn't already out there. The only way to measure velocity (c) in an inertial frame, is to use clocks. The only way to measure clocks in an inertial frame is to use c. Oh dear.... what if they both change together.....SR is based on axioms that depend on each other. Dah.... Direct measurements of moving clocks show they slow down. One needs to jump through hoops to say, "well not really, its an artefact, they only appear to slow down, its a longer path in metaphysical space-time"... yeah right.... smell the roses.... Dr. Who is fantasy. Its pretty obvious, unknown to Einstein in 1905, yet mainstream now, that the vacuum isn't empty, and the QF form the physical structure of how space and time are actually created, but as yet, no one knows how. Einstein was stuck with a behavioural, non physical mathematical *model* of observations. Unfortunately, the followers are still stuck in that same mathematical "geometry is reality" twaddle. Kevin Aylward https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-17 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <217d6ec9-8433-4118-b006-dc5b28679dfen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591827 |
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 constant light speed postulate was derived from the assumption that the speed of light is constant in the ether. > > > [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chau Barbieri <ihue@ricrahhr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-17 13:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tg4htv$5u01$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #591895 |
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 constant light speed postulate was derived from the > assumption that the speed of light is constant in the ether. idiot, was it derived of assumed? You can't have them both same sentence. You chose. Or hunger and war. 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chau Barbieri <ihue@ricrahhr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-17 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tg4tbt$6v0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #591827 |
Tom Roberts 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. >> [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] so true. He is stealing theories, and models. Angry his country was bombed with two atomic bombs. But I am a *Divergent_Mater* man. My theory is entitled *_On_the_Divergent_Mater_of_the Moving_Bodies_Model_*. Doctor professor Einstine stopped *within* Relativity. His mistake. I don't. I look forward. In communism I keep the *class_struggle* permanent. 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-18 05:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3c7b4ee-6de3-4548-beb9-a9b30e6785c2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591827 |
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. > > > [... rest ignored as too stupid to deserve comment] > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-18 12:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tl8h2d$303a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595620 |
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. Also there are an infinite number of different inertial frames. Do you believe that all of them are somehow the rest frame of the aether?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7246a93-3125-4d6e-8da5-63bd91f067acn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595639 |
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. > > Also there are an infinite number of different inertial frames. Do you > believe that all of them are somehow the rest frame of the aether? Prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 21:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tleob7$3nop0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595763 |
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. In the real world, with gravity everywhere, you can only use SR in situations where gravity effects are so small that the deviation from pure SR is smaller than systematic errors elsewhere. Like how Tom R keeps mentioning particle accelerators, sure the horizontal particle beam is deflected downward by gravity but at the speeds and distances involved this deflection is so tiny that they ignore it and use SR in their analysis. >> >> Also there are an infinite number of different inertial frames. Do you >> believe that all of them are somehow the rest frame of the aether? > > Prove it. What is there to prove? As long as speeds are real numbers, I can pick any speed I want for one frame relative to another (any of the infinite number of speeds between -c and c, not inclusive), I can pick any origin offset I want and I can pick any angle offset for two angles when choosing alignment. I can only conclude that you simply don't understand reference frames at all. Or the properties of real numbers (it's not third grade math, after all)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-21 05:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b70e603-f2f0-486d-a407-e8e9bdebe514n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595829 |
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? > > In the real world, with gravity everywhere, you can only use SR in > situations where gravity effects are so small that the deviation from > pure SR is smaller than systematic errors elsewhere. Like how Tom R > keeps mentioning particle accelerators, sure the horizontal particle > beam is deflected downward by gravity but at the speeds and distances > involved this deflection is so tiny that they ignore it and use SR in > their analysis. > >> > >> Also there are an infinite number of different inertial frames. Do you > >> believe that all of them are somehow the rest frame of the aether? > > > > Prove it. > What is there to prove? As long as speeds are real numbers, I can pick > any speed I want for one frame relative to another (any of the infinite > number of speeds between -c and c, not inclusive), I can pick any origin > offset I want and I can pick any angle offset for two angles when > choosing alignment. > > I can only conclude that you simply don't understand reference frames at > all. Or the properties of real numbers (it's not third grade math, after > all)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 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