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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611091 > unrolled thread

Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 01:39 +0000
    Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-18 21:59 -0500
      Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 07:23 +0000
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-19 08:28 -0500
          Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 21:05 +0000
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 17:59 -0500
    Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-18 22:14 -0500
      Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 21:32 +0000
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 18:10 -0500
          Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:52 +0000
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 10:05 -0500
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 09:27 -0700
                Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:58 +0000
                  Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 19:16 -0700
                    Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-26 02:35 +0000
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:54 +0000
                Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 21:20 -0500
                  Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:35 +0000
                    Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-25 19:50 -0500
                Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-24 12:57 -0500
                  Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 11:44 -0700
                    Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was   Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 09:18 +0200
                      Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-25 13:45 -0400
                        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was   Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 20:02 +0200
                        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Ridge Schwarzenberg <szrr@sdirgwah.gs> - 2023-05-25 18:13 +0000
                        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:49 +0000
                  Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:45 +0000
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-20 16:15 -0700
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:35 -0500
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-21 13:47 -0700
          Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:05 +0000
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-22 20:11 -0700
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 06:23 +0000
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:02 -0700
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 06:25 +0000
        Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-21 13:53 -0700
          Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 21:22 +0000
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 22:09 -0700
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 10:14 -0700
            Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-01 10:59 -0700
              Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 00:17 +0000
                Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 10:00 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#611091 — Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.)

On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote:

>>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite

> 
> Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this
> newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts.
> The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that you
> don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to bluff your
> way through.

Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts.
 
> Clearly what *I* know of physics is not the real(tm) issue here. You
> come on the scene explaining facts about sine waves but you are unable
> to explain *WHAT* they are made of. Then you evade by attacking.

It does not matter what they are made of, dopey. The TWE is a general 
equation that refers to ANY traveling sine wave....like the one I told 
you to draw on paper and move it across the screen.
 
> I am willing to admit I don't know what the sine wave you've been
> discussing is made of. 

It does not matter what it is 'made of'. This why it is so frustrating to 
try to educate a non physicist. 

> Since you have refused to answer that question it
> is abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know either but continue
> to make believe that the "facts" you've lectured this newsgroup about
> are somehow relevant to being something more than a partial model but
> those "facts" are not predictive of anything (the real(tm) basis for
> science.) In reality, nobody knows what those sine waves are made of but
> then nobody with actual physics knowledge cares because they recognize
> sine waves are a partial model for things like radar and broadcast radio
> waves (and for that matter cell phone originated waves as well. (Not an
> all inclusive list.))

Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue. 


> 




-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#611096

On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:

<snip many nothings>

> Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue.

It has to be at least 20 years since anyone was stupid enough to
use that particular complaint in these sci newsgroups. That
tells the readers all that is (im)pertinent about you. Well
not quite, the dementia discussion you culled is probably the
decisive factor.

Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to
as EM waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend
your failures through yet another personal attack (you've probably
forgotten the term ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that
discussion, which is "what is predicted by your theories regarding
sine waves?"

I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have
nothing else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter
for this newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes
you thunk, even for an instant, that your purpose here is as a
teacher of some sort? Heck, you are incapable of answering the
really easy questions and ideally a teacher can do that and
much more.

Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent
discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because
nature grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of
material on that topic, if you're interested in your short term
future.

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

#611117

On Thu, 18 May 2023 21:59:01 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:
> 
> <snip many nothings>
> 
>> Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue.
> 
> It has to be at least 20 years since anyone was stupid enough to use
> that particular complaint in these sci newsgroups. 

MY UNCLE NO DOUBT...AND I can see now that HE WAS JUSTIFIED...


> Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to as EM
> waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend your failures
> through yet another personal attack (you've probably forgotten the term
> ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that discussion, which is "what
> is predicted by your theories regarding sine waves?"

Nothing is predicted by me. I am merely stating pure physics and 
correcting the mistakes of relativist idiots. Light does NOT have an 
intrinsic frequency yet about 90% of support for Einstein relies on it 
having one. The beam of a light clock does not become vertical in a 
moving frame. If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a course in 
physics.
 
> I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have nothing
> else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter for this
> newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes you thunk, even for
> an instant, that your purpose here is as a teacher of some sort? Heck,
> you are incapable of answering the really easy questions and ideally a
> teacher can do that and much more.

It is no concern of mine if others prefer to remain ignorant...but I'm 
quite happy to give them a free education if they want to learn.
 
> Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent
> discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because nature
> grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of material on
> that topic, if you're interested in your short term future.

It seems that the only tactic Einstein supporters now have left is 
ridiculing those who know the real facts...Sorry. You only make fools of 
yourselves.





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611133

On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 21:59:01 -0500, whodat wrote:

>> Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to as EM
>> waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend your failures
>> through yet another personal attack (you've probably forgotten the term
>> ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that discussion, which is "what
>> is predicted by your theories regarding sine waves?"

> Nothing is predicted by me. 

That's right for a change. I'm glad you admit it. The entire purpose
of physics is to be able to predict nature's behavior. The theory
of sine waves you promote does not achieve that. So this, standing
alone as you have introduced it, is a failure.

> I am merely stating pure physics and
> correcting the mistakes of relativist idiots. 

Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity?

Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in
the information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting
has no test available to validate it.

> Light does NOT have an
> intrinsic frequency yet about 90% of support for Einstein relies on it
> having one. 

So what you're saying here is that every theory accepted in physics
must be 100% correct? That's such a mouthful that isn't the truth
that you claim to love. Physics theories have a validity that is
limited by range. That's been acknowledged for a very long time.

> The beam of a light clock does not become vertical in a
> moving frame. If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a course in
> physics.

Must everyone be interested in every aspect of physics? Boy, you sure
do have a lot of rules that most of earth's population doesn't give
a whit about. I don't care about a "light clock" but don't criticize
you for having that as an interest.

>> I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have nothing
>> else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter for this
>> newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes you thunk, even for
>> an instant, that your purpose here is as a teacher of some sort? Heck,
>> you are incapable of answering the really easy questions and ideally a
>> teacher can do that and much more.

> It is no concern of mine if others prefer to remain ignorant...but I'm
> quite happy to give them a free education if they want to learn.

Just what is the normal distribution of knowledge among humans? And
who made you the purveyor of all *important* knowledge? Once again,
read the charter for this newsgroup preferably before you spout off
again crowning yourself royalty in the field of physics. All I've
ever claimed in  this newsgroup is that I have some very very
good questions while admitting I have no answers. It is clear that
your stick ball culture coupled with your dementia stands in the
way of engaging in rational conversation.

>> Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent
>> discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because nature
>> grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of material on
>> that topic, if you're interested in your short term future.

> It seems that the only tactic Einstein supporters now have left is
> ridiculing those who know the real facts...Sorry. You only make fools of
> yourselves.

Firstly, painting "Einstein supporters" with that wide brush is not a
legitimate basis for discussion. But of course you're not here to
discuss, you're here to lecture the way narcissists tend to. AND:

"If you have a family member with narcissistic personality disorder,
you’re familiar with the erratic, toxic, and abusive behaviors the
disorder can cause. As the person ages, you might wonder whether their
behavior will improve or worsen. One particularly big concern for
families of narcissists is Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia can
dramatically change someone’s personality as the cognitive decline
progresses. In people with narcissism, Alzheimer’s disease can create
some unique challenges."

I urge you to learn how to conduct civilized discourse.

<https://bluemoonseniorcounseling.com/alzheimers-disease-and-the-aging-narcissist/>

"And so it goes."

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

#611253

On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:28:18 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote:

>> I am merely stating pure physics and correcting the mistakes of
>> relativist idiots.
> 
> Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity?
> 
> Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in the
> information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting has no test
> available to validate it.

The biggest hole is inside your head.  

snip crap




-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611265

On 5/20/2023 4:05 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:28:18 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote:
> 
>>> I am merely stating pure physics and correcting the mistakes of
>>> relativist idiots.
>>
>> Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity?
>>
>> Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in the
>> information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting has no test
>> available to validate it.
> 
> The biggest hole is inside your head.
> 
> snip crap

Reversion to juvenile antics is another signal of dementia. Thanks for
another demonstration.

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

#611098

On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote:
> 
>>>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite
> 
>>
>> Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this
>> newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts.
>> The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that you
>> don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to bluff your
>> way through.

> Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts.

Thank you for providing another perfect example of your bluffing.

Three readers asked you to define "frequency" providing context
to a particular question you asked. So far, only bluffing and
as I keep repeating, all bun no beef.

<snip>

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

#611254

On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:14:02 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote:
>> 
>>>>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite
>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this
>>> newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts.
>>> The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that
>>> you don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to
>>> bluff your way through.
> 
>> Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts.
> 
> Thank you for providing another perfect example of your bluffing.
> 
> Three readers asked you to define "frequency" providing context to a
> particular question you asked. So far, only bluffing and as I keep
> repeating, all bun no beef.

Gawd! The idiots talk about the frequency of light all the time. Surely 
they have some idea of its definition.  I will remind them.

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 that is moving at speed v relative to the source  
must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ.

Note, 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 his attempt to rescue Einstein from eminent obscurity.

> <snip>





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611266

On 5/20/2023 4:32 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:14:02 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this
>>>> newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts.
>>>> The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that
>>>> you don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to
>>>> bluff your way through.
>>
>>> Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts.
>>
>> Thank you for providing another perfect example of your bluffing.
>>
>> Three readers asked you to define "frequency" providing context to a
>> particular question you asked. So far, only bluffing and as I keep
>> repeating, all bun no beef.
> 
> Gawd! The idiots talk about the frequency of light all the time. Surely
> they have some idea of its definition.  I will remind them.

Doesn't matter what "they" know. The question was asked in the context
of your questions related to an example you were making using initially
golf balls then soon after using arrows. Any definition you now give
without reverting to the original context in which you were asked is
worthless.

I am leaving the subsequent discourse by you in place to demonstrate the
abject uselessness of this latest ploy. If you mean this put it in the
context necessary to demonstrate its relevance to your questions. You
should have answered then rather than now. And you still haven't nswered 
the actual question. The question then was not about "the so
called 'frequency of light'" but about golf balls.

So far all bun and still no beef.

> 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 that is moving at speed v relative to the source
> must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ.
> 
> Note, 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 his attempt to rescue Einstein from eminent obscurity.
> 
>> <snip>

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

#611400

On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/20/2023 4:32 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:14:02 -0500, whodat wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms
>>>>>>> despite
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this
>>>>> newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts. The
>>>>> reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that you
>>>>> don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to bluff
>>>>> your way through.
>>>
>>>> Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts.
>>>
>>> Thank you for providing another perfect example of your bluffing.
>>>
>>> Three readers asked you to define "frequency" providing context to a
>>> particular question you asked. So far, only bluffing and as I keep
>>> repeating, all bun no beef.
>> 
>> Gawd! The idiots talk about the frequency of light all the time. Surely
>> they have some idea of its definition.  I will remind them.
> 
> Doesn't matter what "they" know. The question was asked in the context
> of your questions related to an example you were making using initially
> golf balls then soon after using arrows. Any definition you now give
> without reverting to the original context in which you were asked is
> worthless.
> 
> I am leaving the subsequent discourse by you in place to demonstrate the
> abject uselessness of this latest ploy. If you mean this put it in the
> context necessary to demonstrate its relevance to your questions. You
> should have answered then rather than now. And you still haven't nswered
> the actual question. The question then was not about "the so called
> 'frequency of light'" but about golf balls.
> 
> So far all bun and still no beef.

You wouldn't know beef from cowdung.
 
>> 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 that is moving at speed v relative to the
>> source must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ.
>> 
>> Note, 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 his attempt to rescue Einstein from eminent
>> obscurity.

Like all relativists you think procrastination will save you from 
eventually having to say, " Well done Jane! Everything you have taught us 
is absolutely brilliant and correct. Why has it taken 200 years for 
someone to get it right?"

>>> <snip>





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611434

On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:

<...>

>> So far all bun and still no beef.
> 
> You wouldn't know beef from cowdung.

<...>

> Like all relativists you think procrastination will save you from
> eventually having to say, " Well done Jane! Everything you have taught us
> is absolutely brilliant and correct. Why has it taken 200 years for
> someone to get it right?"


Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that
came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for
your ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals.

I am indeed a default relativist who accepts Einstein's work because
of the support he has received in the intervening hundred plus years
despite the fact that it appears kooky. GPS clocks alone are clear
evidence for much. But then I am not attempting to convince anyone
of anything and am not lashing out at people with insulting behavior.

I wish you recovery despite the fact that you appear to be on a
permanently one way street.

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

#611443

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:06:47 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote: 
> > On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:
> <...>
> >> So far all bun and still no beef. 
> > 
> > You wouldn't know beef from cowdung.
> <...>
> > Like all relativists you think procrastination will save you from 
> > eventually having to say, " Well done Jane! Everything you have taught us 
> > is absolutely brilliant and correct. Why has it taken 200 years for 
> > someone to get it right?"
> Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that 
> came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for 
> your ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals. 
> 
> I am indeed a default relativist who accepts Einstein's work because 
> of the support he has received in the intervening hundred plus years 
> despite the fact that it appears kooky. GPS clocks alone are clear 
> evidence for much. But then I am not attempting to convince anyone 
> of anything and am not lashing out at people with insulting behavior. 
> 
> I wish you recovery despite the fact that you appear to be on a 
> permanently one way street.
So, this piece of shit was once teaching?

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

#611473

On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:27:22 -0700, Dono. wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:06:47 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote:
>> > On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:
>> <...>
>> >> So far all bun and still no beef.
>> > 
>> > You wouldn't know beef from cowdung.
>> <...>
>> > Like all relativists you think procrastination will save you from
>> > eventually having to say, " Well done Jane! Everything you have
>> > taught us is absolutely brilliant and correct. Why has it taken 200
>> > years for someone to get it right?"
>> Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that
>> came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for
>> your ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals.
>> 
>> I am indeed a default relativist who accepts Einstein's work because of
>> the support he has received in the intervening hundred plus years
>> despite the fact that it appears kooky. GPS clocks alone are clear
>> evidence for much. But then I am not attempting to convince anyone of
>> anything and am not lashing out at people with insulting behavior.
>> 
>> I wish you recovery despite the fact that you appear to be on a
>> permanently one way street.
> So, this piece of shit was once teaching?

You are being unkind calling Whodat 'a piece of shit'. He isn't as bad as 
most of your braindead colleagues. 





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611477

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:58:47 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:27:22 -0700, Dono. wrote: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:06:47 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote: 
> >> > On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote: 
> >> <...> 
> >> >> So far all bun and still no beef. 
> >> > 
> >> > You wouldn't know beef from cowdung. 
> >> <...> 
> >> > Like all relativists you think procrastination will save you from 
> >> > eventually having to say, " Well done Jane! Everything you have 
> >> > taught us is absolutely brilliant and correct. Why has it taken 200 
> >> > years for someone to get it right?" 
> >> Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that 
> >> came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for 
> >> your ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals. 
> >> 
> >> I am indeed a default relativist who accepts Einstein's work because of 
> >> the support he has received in the intervening hundred plus years 
> >> despite the fact that it appears kooky. GPS clocks alone are clear 
> >> evidence for much. But then I am not attempting to convince anyone of 
> >> anything and am not lashing out at people with insulting behavior. 
> >> 
> >> I wish you recovery despite the fact that you appear to be on a 
> >> permanently one way street. 

> > So, this piece of shit was once teaching?

> You are being unkind calling Whodat 'a piece of shit'. He isn't as bad as 
> most of your braindead colleagues.

I'm pretty sure that Dono was not referencing Whodat...

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

#611620

On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:16:02 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:58:47 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:27:22 -0700, Dono. wrote:

>> >> I am indeed a default relativist who accepts Einstein's work because
>> >> of the support he has received in the intervening hundred plus years
>> >> despite the fact that it appears kooky. GPS clocks alone are clear
>> >> evidence for much. But then I am not attempting to convince anyone
>> >> of anything and am not lashing out at people with insulting
>> >> behavior.
>> >> 
>> >> I wish you recovery despite the fact that you appear to be on a
>> >> permanently one way street.
> 
>> > So, this piece of shit was once teaching?
> 
>> You are being unkind calling Whodat 'a piece of shit'. He isn't as bad
>> as most of your braindead colleagues.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Dono was not referencing Whodat...

Well he must have been referring to himself...he used the word 'this' as 
though looking in a mirror.





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611472

On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:05:23 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:

> Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that
> came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for your
> ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals.

The word 'peer' puts me off. It means 'the team of Einstein worshipping 
censors'.
 
I have provided all the evidence needed to refute Einstein. You people 
are just too backward or stubborn to accept any of it. I have explained 
why the bogus light clock argumment about gamma and time dilation has 
managed to fool the experts for 200 years. I have explained why light 
does not carry a frequency during transit and I have fully explained why 
Michelcon's 1913 experiment refutes Einstein. Hpw much more proof do you 
want.





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611479

On 5/23/2023 7:54 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:05:23 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/22/2023 9:52 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 18:10:55 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, now there is nothing separating you from all the cranks that
>> came before you. You have provided no support or authentication for your
>> ideas nor are you submitting anything to peer reviewed journals.
> 
> The word 'peer' puts me off. It means 'the team of Einstein worshipping
> censors'.
>   
> I have provided all the evidence needed to refute Einstein. You people
> are just too backward or stubborn to accept any of it. I have explained
> why the bogus light clock argumment about gamma and time dilation has
> managed to fool the experts for 200 years. I have explained why light
> does not carry a frequency during transit and I have fully explained why
> Miche > lcon's 1913 experiment refutes Einstein. Hpw much more proof do you
> want.

Really. You've given us links to experiments you've performed 
demonstrating your "thesis?" I must have missed them somehow. Would
you mind very much posting the links to your experiments again?

Pretty please!!!!

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

#611611

On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:20:33 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/23/2023 7:54 PM, Jane wrote:

>>   
>> I have provided all the evidence needed to refute Einstein. You people
>> are just too backward or stubborn to accept any of it. I have explained
>> why the bogus light clock argumment about gamma and time dilation has
>> managed to fool the experts for 200 years. I have explained why light
>> does not carry a frequency during transit and I have fully explained
>> why Miche > lcon's 1913 experiment refutes Einstein. Hpw much more
>> proof do you want.
> 
> Really. You've given us links to experiments you've performed
> demonstrating your "thesis?" I must have missed them somehow. Would you
> mind very much posting the links to your experiments again?
> 
> Pretty please!!!!

You sound like a little kid who had not learnt to feed itself...





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611616

On 5/25/2023 6:35 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:20:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/23/2023 7:54 PM, Jane wrote:
> 
>>>    
>>> I have provided all the evidence needed to refute Einstein. You people
>>> are just too backward or stubborn to accept any of it. I have explained
>>> why the bogus light clock argumment about gamma and time dilation has
>>> managed to fool the experts for 200 years. I have explained why light
>>> does not carry a frequency during transit and I have fully explained
>>> why Miche > lcon's 1913 experiment refutes Einstein. Hpw much more
>>> proof do you want.
>>
>> Really. You've given us links to experiments you've performed
>> demonstrating your "thesis?" I must have missed them somehow. Would you
>> mind very much posting the links to your experiments again?
>>
>> Pretty please!!!!
> 
> You sound like a little kid who had not learnt to feed itself...

There is no cogent reply to someone so far gone as you've just
demonstrated. My only complaint with your postings was that you
failed to legitimately support your claims, but you've demonstrated
that not only do you have no thesis worthy of consideration but also
that you've lost your marbles. I know that at this stage of life you
can't help yourself. I'll remember the person you once were and
forgive and forget this stage of your life.

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

#611506

On 5/23/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote:
> I have provided all the evidence needed to refute Einstein.

With practically everything you write you display colossal ignorance of
physics, science, and the experimental record.

One does not refute a person, one refutes a theory (aka model), and that
requires an experiment, not just prattling on and on about waves and how
you fantasize they should behave.

> You people are just too backward or stubborn to accept any of it.

You have provided nothing substantial to "accept". You just make
unsubstantiated claims.

> [... more unsubstantiated claims]

When you reference an actual EXPERIMENT with a result that differs
significantly from the prediction of SR (within its domain), then I will
listen. Or an EXPERIMENT with a result that differs significantly from
the prediction of classical electrodynamics (within its domain).

So far you have only shown how useless it is to reply to you, so I will
stop doing so until you have something real to offer.

Tom Roberts

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web