Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611255 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-20 21:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-05-23 01:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 21:46 +0000
Re: Clarification of Bartholomew Ramaker <aaeo@koawrwel.ra> - 2023-05-20 22:26 +0000
Re: Clarification of whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 18:28 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-21 00:28 +0200
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 15:45 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 22:54 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-22 02:11 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 20:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:54 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-23 19:50 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-24 01:54 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Celedonio Seelen <ecoe@nccscnlc.oe> - 2023-05-24 22:07 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-24 20:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:06 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Duston Haanraats <atsu@assahdta.ad> - 2023-05-25 23:15 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-25 19:41 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-25 19:22 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-25 19:40 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-26 02:51 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 00:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:11 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 19:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 23:17 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-27 20:26 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 19:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 10:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 10:56 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 11:24 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:25 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 20:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 21:14 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 10:48 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 10:51 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:32 +0000
Uncle Jane Fails Again (was Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 20:45 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 18:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 20:47 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 21:18 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 21:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 18:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:22 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 23:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:45 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-22 20:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 05:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 10:09 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:40 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 21:16 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 17:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-21 02:16 +0200
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 02:58 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:24 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:20 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-22 20:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 05:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:32 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:52 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-21 12:51 +0300
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:44 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-22 10:17 +0300
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:21 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-25 13:52 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 12:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:17 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-05 15:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-07 02:21 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-07 12:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-08 05:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-12 07:37 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-12 18:59 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 19:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-12 21:40 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <jane@home.com> - 2023-06-13 11:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-13 07:43 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 13:47 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-14 00:34 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 18:17 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles Ghost <AG@home.com> - 2023-06-14 09:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 08:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-14 10:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-15 09:45 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-16 03:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:55 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-15 08:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-16 04:22 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:58 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-17 00:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:06 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 08:17 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:50 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 13:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:06 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:34 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 19:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:08 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c339df1b-e5b5-4a8e-8f78-76c3e30197f8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611702 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2023 19:24:53 -0500, whodat wrote: > > > On 5/26/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote: > > >> > >> ...and most importantly, all those who prove Einstein wrong are > >> crackpots. > >> > >>> Some "Golden Years" types are the most beatific, best kind of people. > >> > >> That apparently excludes Einstein worshippers. > > > > The topics covered in your reply to Ross represent the least of you > > worries. If you were able you'd do much better sticking to the topics on > > point, that is your inability to respond with any arguments supporting > > your "thesis." Having chosen the easiest path puts you as a follower of > > the crank trail left by many trolls before you. > You keep repeating this. I can only assume you know so little about > physics that you cannot understand a word of what I have been saying. If > you were really criticising me instead of just trying to defend your E- > religion with pathetic insults, you would make a serious attempt to > refute my claims. > For instance, you could tell me how Sagnac refutes the ballistic theory > of light.. Tell me how a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal light > beam just because somebody goes flying past ..tell me where Maxwell's > equations suggest a travelling oscillation.... > > So put up or shut up.. > -- > -- lover of truth It's Fitzgerald's about the space-contraction, you know, "atoms are mostly space", and, are the content of the "inertial systems", so at least Galilean it's so - besides the optical character of visible light, with regards to whatever is an ether in the space of the electrical field(s), where electrons are bradyonic and photons are tachyonic, with respect to radio-frequency radiation, and their detectors what are magnetic effects in antennae. Maxwell's fields (and furthermore, the rest of the lettered fields of electromagnetism) live in the space the electrical fields and the kinetic interfaces the magnetic, if you're not aware there's some twenty or more lettered fields of electromagnetism mostly about the potential, you can't do much 'splainin'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16bc8f55-bb55-4a13-9698-35c2595c9db8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611712 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2023 19:24:53 -0500, whodat wrote: > > > > > On 5/26/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote: > > > > >> > > >> ...and most importantly, all those who prove Einstein wrong are > > >> crackpots. > > >> > > >>> Some "Golden Years" types are the most beatific, best kind of people. > > >> > > >> That apparently excludes Einstein worshippers. > > > > > > The topics covered in your reply to Ross represent the least of you > > > worries. If you were able you'd do much better sticking to the topics on > > > point, that is your inability to respond with any arguments supporting > > > your "thesis." Having chosen the easiest path puts you as a follower of > > > the crank trail left by many trolls before you. > > You keep repeating this. I can only assume you know so little about > > physics that you cannot understand a word of what I have been saying. If > > you were really criticising me instead of just trying to defend your E- > > religion with pathetic insults, you would make a serious attempt to > > refute my claims. > > For instance, you could tell me how Sagnac refutes the ballistic theory > > of light.. Tell me how a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal light > > beam just because somebody goes flying past ..tell me where Maxwell's > > equations suggest a travelling oscillation.... > > > > So put up or shut up.. > > -- > > -- lover of truth > It's Fitzgerald's about the space-contraction, you know, "atoms are mostly space", > and, are the content of the "inertial systems", so at least Galilean it's so - besides > the optical character of visible light, with regards to whatever is an ether in the > space of the electrical field(s), where electrons are bradyonic and photons are tachyonic, > with respect to radio-frequency radiation, and their detectors what are magnetic effects > in antennae. > > Maxwell's fields (and furthermore, the rest of the lettered fields of electromagnetism) > live in the space the electrical fields and the kinetic interfaces the magnetic, > if you're not aware there's some twenty or more lettered fields of > electromagnetism mostly about the potential, you can't do much 'splainin'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(electricity_and_magnetism)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763765613659253$94$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611747 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 09:00:20 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> Maxwell's fields (and furthermore, the rest of the lettered fields of >> electromagnetism) live in the space the electrical fields and the >> kinetic interfaces the magnetic, >> if you're not aware there's some twenty or more lettered fields of >> electromagnetism mostly about the potential, you can't do much >> 'splainin'. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(electricity_and_magnetism) ....Load of absolute crap.... trying to give Einstein credit for the work of all the genuine physicists before him. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 20:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdieieFmcckU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611778 |
On 5/28/2023 7:39 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 09:00:20 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:48:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >>> Maxwell's fields (and furthermore, the rest of the lettered fields of >>> electromagnetism) live in the space the electrical fields and the >>> kinetic interfaces the magnetic, >>> if you're not aware there's some twenty or more lettered fields of >>> electromagnetism mostly about the potential, you can't do much >>> 'splainin'. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(electricity_and_magnetism) > > ....Load of absolute crap.... trying to give Einstein credit for the work > of all the genuine physicists before him. So no original work on your part then? I rather thought not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4313aeba-1861-4be5-8ebe-6c33140d0763n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611665 |
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:13:19 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:03:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 10:07:24 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/25/2023 9:51 PM, Jane wrote: > >> > On Thu, 25 May 2023 19:40:37 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> <...> > > Some "Golden Years" people turn all "Golden Years", > > others into various sorts. > > > > There's also "can't fix stupid", and, "it's long been known that mental > > illness carries stigma". > > > > Then, poor manners and absence of things like fairness and so on are > > often considered not just rude, but character flaws, > > or that the deceitful are dishonest and untrustworthy, > > that criminals are scum, crazies are scabies, > > these kinds of things. > ...and most importantly, all those who prove Einstein wrong are > crackpots. > > Some "Golden Years" types are the most beatific, best kind of people. > That apparently excludes Einstein worshippers > -- > -- lover of truth If you read Einstein as a generous, though guarded, grandiose, hedge: you'll probably find he says a lot less than what people extrapolate of it, and that his model physicist and model philosopher together make for a quite reasonable scientist. Einstein long ago left out "SR" as "local", only asking that "light's speed is constant in whatever space it's in", then for that "mass-energy equivalency holds up for the rotational in the space" that then a real space-contraction is really a thing. So, don't confuse ""Einsteinians", with "Einstein". There are at least two kinds of Einsteinians, his model physicists, and his model philosophers, and not all are both. Hmm, kind of like "not even wrong", "you don't even bore me". Here I read a deconstructivist account of Einstein's "Out of My Later Years". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3 So, why acceleration doesn't change color, it does change the size of the image, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0838fff-6ba6-4cbb-a580-f28d07461353n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611673 |
On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 06:18:14 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:13:19 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:03:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 10:07:24 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > >> On 5/25/2023 9:51 PM, Jane wrote: > > >> > On Thu, 25 May 2023 19:40:37 -0500, whodat wrote: > > >> <...> > > > Some "Golden Years" people turn all "Golden Years", > > > others into various sorts. > > > > > > There's also "can't fix stupid", and, "it's long been known that mental > > > illness carries stigma". > > > > > > Then, poor manners and absence of things like fairness and so on are > > > often considered not just rude, but character flaws, > > > or that the deceitful are dishonest and untrustworthy, > > > that criminals are scum, crazies are scabies, > > > these kinds of things. > > ...and most importantly, all those who prove Einstein wrong are > > crackpots. > > > Some "Golden Years" types are the most beatific, best kind of people. > > That apparently excludes Einstein worshippers > > -- > > -- lover of truth > If you read Einstein as a generous, though guarded, grandiose, hedge: > you'll probably find he says a lot less than what people extrapolate of it, And his idiotic mumble wasn't even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kct3aqFdippU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
On 5/20/2023 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at > the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with > the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of light > arriving at an object which is moving at speed v relative to the source > must therefore be (c+v)/λ. I don't doubt that you and some others believe that to be fact, but in order to achieve acceptance you need to be able to demonstrate it well beyond "must therefore be." Later you call it a "fact." Where's the beef? > It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson to make an > absolute fool of himself when he performed his moving mirror experiment in > 1913 in the hope of rescuing Einstein from threatening obscurity. It is > also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic > theory...and by many other people regularly. It turns out that Einstein's pronouncements depend on an Aether that I think I recall you deny. Perhaps resolution of that difficulty might hope to close the gap. Ball is still in your court. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Einstein's teachings can be overturned. It is just you haven't done that justice as yet. So please have at it with something more than gusto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17610a8998ebe732$25$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611269 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:27:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/20/2023 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is >> at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the >> frequency of light arriving at an object which is moving at speed v >> relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. > > I don't doubt that you and some others believe that to be fact, but in > order to achieve acceptance you need to be able to demonstrate it well > beyond "must therefore be." Later you call it a "fact." Where's the > beef? This is purely a matter of definition. Can you see any difference in principle between wave departure rate and wave arrival rate? >> It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson to make an >> absolute fool of himself when he performed his moving mirror experiment >> in 1913 in the hope of rescuing Einstein from threatening obscurity. It >> is also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's >> Ballistic theory...and by many other people regularly. > > It turns out that Einstein's pronouncements depend on an Aether that I > think I recall you deny. Perhaps resolution of that difficulty might > hope to close the gap. Ball is still in your court. Einstein's theory was just an extension of Lorentz's Ether theory. There is NO Ether. so SR is SciFi. > Don't get me wrong, I believe that Einstein's teachings can be > overturned. It is just you haven't done that justice as yet. So please > have at it with something more than gusto. I have done it many times but it is like telling a catholic there is no god. Faith and fear dominates their mind. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 23:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kctk4lFft8lU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611280 |
On 5/20/2023 10:22 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:27:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/20/2023 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: >>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >>> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is >>> at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the >>> frequency of light arriving at an object which is moving at speed v >>> relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. >> >> I don't doubt that you and some others believe that to be fact, but in >> order to achieve acceptance you need to be able to demonstrate it well >> beyond "must therefore be." Later you call it a "fact." Where's the >> beef? > > This is purely a matter of definition. Can you see any difference in > principle between wave departure rate and wave arrival rate? Definition isn't fact. >>> It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson to make an >>> absolute fool of himself when he performed his moving mirror experiment >>> in 1913 in the hope of rescuing Einstein from threatening obscurity. It >>> is also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's >>> Ballistic theory...and by many other people regularly. >> >> It turns out that Einstein's pronouncements depend on an Aether that I >> think I recall you deny. Perhaps resolution of that difficulty might >> hope to close the gap. Ball is still in your court. > Einstein's theory was just an extension of Lorentz's Ether theory. There > is NO Ether. so SR is SciFi. Ether or no ether is once again a matter of definition/faith. No provable facts thus far either way. That could be something worthy of being worked on. >> Don't get me wrong, I believe that Einstein's teachings can be >> overturned. It is just you haven't done that justice as yet. So please >> have at it with something more than gusto. > > I have done it many times but it is like telling a catholic there is no > god. Faith and fear dominates their mind. Funny how many stripes of Catholics there are including atheists and agnostics. The responses to your theories in this newsgroup are an indication that the scientific community is not generally accepting of your work thus far. In that they are merely a superset of the catholic mind, which means they're all over the place. Interestingly enough the widest beliefs I encountered anywhere was among Catholic clergy (priests) who were teachers at an Illinois seminary. It is a mistake to sell them short.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17619f2ae2b0a327$1868$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611288 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 23:14:05 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/20/2023 10:22 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:27:14 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> I don't doubt that you and some others believe that to be fact, but in >>> order to achieve acceptance you need to be able to demonstrate it well >>> beyond "must therefore be." Later you call it a "fact." Where's the >>> beef? >> >> This is purely a matter of definition. Can you see any difference in >> principle between wave departure rate and wave arrival rate? > > Definition isn't fact. Why did you avoid answering my very important question? The answer is certainly a fact. >> Einstein's theory was just an extension of Lorentz's Ether theory. >> There is NO Ether. so SR is SciFi. > > Ether or no ether is once again a matter of definition/faith. No > provable facts thus far either way. That could be something worthy of > being worked on. there have been plenty of facts. You simply refuse to recognize them. > >>> Don't get me wrong, I believe that Einstein's teachings can be >>> overturned. It is just you haven't done that justice as yet. So please >>> have at it with something more than gusto. >> >> I have done it many times but it is like telling a catholic there is no >> god. Faith and fear dominates their mind. > > Funny how many stripes of Catholics there are including atheists and > agnostics. The responses to your theories in this newsgroup are an > indication that the scientific community is not generally accepting of > your work thus far. In that they are merely a superset of the catholic > mind, which means they're all over the place. People in the religion business know there are no bleeding gods. They are just there for the money, power, sex and the cushy existence. > Interestingly enough the widest beliefs I encountered anywhere was among > Catholic clergy (priests) who were teachers at an Illinois seminary. > One person who certainly knows nothing special happened to him when he was appointed is the pope. > It is a mistake to sell them short. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 20:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kd2ichF95rhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611386 |
On 5/22/2023 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 23:14:05 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/20/2023 10:22 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:27:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>>> I don't doubt that you and some others believe that to be fact, but in >>>> order to achieve acceptance you need to be able to demonstrate it well >>>> beyond "must therefore be." Later you call it a "fact." Where's the >>>> beef? >>> >>> This is purely a matter of definition. Can you see any difference in >>> principle between wave departure rate and wave arrival rate? >> >> Definition isn't fact. > > Why did you avoid answering my very important question? The answer is > certainly a fact. > > >>> Einstein's theory was just an extension of Lorentz's Ether theory. >>> There is NO Ether. so SR is SciFi. >> >> Ether or no ether is once again a matter of definition/faith. No >> provable facts thus far either way. That could be something worthy of >> being worked on. > > there have been plenty of facts. You simply refuse to recognize them. >> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I believe that Einstein's teachings can be >>>> overturned. It is just you haven't done that justice as yet. So please >>>> have at it with something more than gusto. >>> >>> I have done it many times but it is like telling a catholic there is no >>> god. Faith and fear dominates their mind. >> >> Funny how many stripes of Catholics there are including atheists and >> agnostics. The responses to your theories in this newsgroup are an >> indication that the scientific community is not generally accepting of >> your work thus far. In that they are merely a superset of the catholic >> mind, which means they're all over the place. > > People in the religion business know there are no bleeding gods. They are > just there for the money, power, sex and the cushy existence. > > >> Interestingly enough the widest beliefs I encountered anywhere was among >> Catholic clergy (priests) who were teachers at an Illinois seminary. >> > One person who certainly knows nothing special happened to him when he > was appointed is the pope. > >> It is a mistake to sell them short. As usual you've been pointlessly argumentative. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 05:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761af38702ac888$31$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611390 |
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:14:55 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/22/2023 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 23:14:05 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> >>> Interestingly enough the widest beliefs I encountered anywhere was >>> among Catholic clergy (priests) who were teachers at an Illinois >>> seminary. >>> >> One person who certainly knows nothing special happened to him when he >> was appointed is the pope. >> >>> It is a mistake to sell them short. > > As usual you've been pointlessly argumentative. Thanks. Who are you to talk about being argumentative? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kd438sFfsjhU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611413 |
On 5/23/2023 12:39 AM, Jane wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:14:55 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/22/2023 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 23:14:05 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>> >>> >>>> Interestingly enough the widest beliefs I encountered anywhere was >>>> among Catholic clergy (priests) who were teachers at an Illinois >>>> seminary. >>>> >>> One person who certainly knows nothing special happened to him when he >>> was appointed is the pope. >>> >>>> It is a mistake to sell them short. >> >> As usual you've been pointlessly argumentative. Thanks. > > Who are you to talk about being argumentative? I have not denied you any of your claims, merely asked for more information and you not only never gave any but returned to provide meaningless attempted insults that I never accepted. So here, lacking any support, you redefine terms to suit yourself. You've demonstrated yourself a crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761ed776e6a4636$1899$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611435 |
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:09:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/23/2023 12:39 AM, Jane wrote: >> On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:14:55 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>> As usual you've been pointlessly argumentative. Thanks. >> >> Who are you to talk about being argumentative? > > I have not denied you any of your claims, merely asked for more > information and you not only never gave any but returned to provide > meaningless attempted insults that I never accepted. > > So here, lacking any support, you redefine terms to suit yourself. > > You've demonstrated yourself a crank. You have demonstrated that you are a typical Einstein worshipper.. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 21:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kd5acsFlvmuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611471 |
On 5/23/2023 7:40 PM, Jane wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:09:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/23/2023 12:39 AM, Jane wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:14:55 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>>> >>>> As usual you've been pointlessly argumentative. Thanks. >>> >>> Who are you to talk about being argumentative? >> >> I have not denied you any of your claims, merely asked for more >> information and you not only never gave any but returned to provide >> meaningless attempted insults that I never accepted. >> >> So here, lacking any support, you redefine terms to suit yourself. >> >> You've demonstrated yourself a crank. > > You have demonstrated that you are a typical Einstein worshipper.. That's so insane it is almost funny; well about as funny as a rubber crutch. Do you have any awareness as to when things started to go sideways for you? Likely you're still unaware of that. They say that dementia lasts approximately 8 years. And it worked out that way in my mother's case. I wonder how long it will be before you can't type, or is your nephew doing the typing for you already?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e455210-8037-41aa-9725-0c63ad7c147bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at > the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with > the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of light > arriving at an object which is moving at speed v relative to the source > must therefore be (c+v)/λ. So... where is your evidence in support of this claim? You do know that there are many, many experiments that refute your claim, right? You Uncle John believed that same nonsense that you do, so crankery clearly runs in the family. Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a crank with a capital 'C' " yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 02:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u4bnsh$17uqa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611271 |
Le 21/05/2023 à 02:09, Paul Alsing a écrit : > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at >> the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with >> the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of light >> arriving at an object which is moving at speed v relative to the source >> must therefore be (c+v)/λ. > > So... where is your evidence in support of this claim? You do know that there are many, many experiments that refute your claim, right? You Uncle John believed that same nonsense that you do, so crankery clearly runs in the family. > > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a crank with a capital 'C' " yet? I wonder if Jane knew Wendy Parker. Jane?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761093dbca4116d$23$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611272 |
On Sun, 21 May 2023 02:16:16 +0200, Python wrote: > Le 21/05/2023 à 02:09, Paul Alsing a écrit : >> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> >>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >>> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is >>> at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the >>> frequency of light arriving at an object which is moving at speed v >>> relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. >> >> So... where is your evidence in support of this claim? You do know that >> there are many, many experiments that refute your claim, right? You >> Uncle John believed that same nonsense that you do, so crankery clearly >> runs in the family. >> >> Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a >> crank with a capital 'C' " yet? > > I wonder if Jane knew Wendy Parker. Jane? John daughter died of cancer, very tragically. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17610ab007b2a56b$26$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611271 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is >> at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the >> frequency of light arriving at an object which is moving at speed v >> relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. > > So... where is your evidence in support of this claim? You do know that > there are many, many experiments that refute your claim, right? Name one and I will tell why it is crap. >You Uncle John believed that same nonsense that you do, so crankery > > > clearly runs in the family. > > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a > crank with a capital 'C' " yet? Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will ever be. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e04204f1-4f23-4239-ae69-4e799390a4d7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611281 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > > >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission > >> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is > >> at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the > >> frequency of light arriving at an object which is moving at speed v > >> relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. > > > > So... where is your evidence in support of this claim? You do know that > > there are many, many experiments that refute your claim, right? > Name one and I will tell why it is crap. Sure, knock yourself out... but there are a LOT more than one... https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > >Your Uncle John believed that same nonsense that you do, so crankery > > > > clearly runs in the family. > > > > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a > > crank with a capital 'C' " yet? > Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will > ever be. "DR" John Parker? AYFKM? Now you have gone way too far! He admitted that he was a crank with a Capital "C"! Besides, he would be the first to tell *you* that opinions are worthless in science... evidence rules, and so far, You've got none! John Parker was no scientist!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web