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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 19:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u4oqj1$3mumg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611607 |
On 5/25/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: > 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the > red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought > down his idol. He has nothing left. Those "red faces" you see are all the "relativists" (crank word) laughing so hard at your pathetic attempts at attacking relativity that their faces turn red from laughing so hard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 19:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdadgaFferpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611607 |
On 5/25/2023 6:06 PM, Jane wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:05 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/24/2023 12:54 AM, Volney wrote: >>> On 5/23/2023 8:38 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:50:18 -0400, Volney wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: >>> >>>>>> garbage...since when did energy have inertia. >>> >>>>>> You know nothing >>> >>>>>> more religious crap >>> >>>>>> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >>>>>> church... >>>>> >>>>>> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to >>>>>> inflict it on the rest of us. >>>>> >>>>>> That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. >>>>> >>>>> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >>>>> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". >>>> >>>> tell me...what is it like to be totally braindead like you and your >>>> colleagues? >>>> >>> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >>> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". >> >> Going OT here: >> >> You're right, of course. But even beyond that it became clear that >> today's Uncle Jane is incapable of appreciating the underlying problem. >> The version of this person that I knew was a Brooklyn Polytech >> mathematics graduate and she was sharp and a considerate human being >> unlike today's version. >> >> If we live long enough similar failure comes to most of us. As >> magnificent as the human brain is it has a shelf life, sometimes longer, >> sometimes shorter. There is only the matter of the degree of failure >> occurring first and when failure happens the type of failure hardly >> matters. One could not miss that Uncle Jane appears to be enjoying her >> dementia. > > 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the > red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought > down his idol. He has nothing left. Sorry to say this, Jane, but you're delusional. I have no idols. As a child, I did. But that was a long time ago and I retired those idols in my teenage years. You were told the pertinent aspects before. So now we know where you are in the scheme of things, well past the point of no return. You may think this an argument. It isn't. "Delusions (firmly held beliefs in things that are not real) may occur in middle- to late-stage Alzheimer's. Confusion and memory loss — such as the inability to remember certain people or objects — can contribute to these untrue beliefs. A person with Alzheimer's may believe a family member is stealing his or her possessions or that he or she is being followed by the police. This kind of suspicious delusion is sometimes referred to as paranoia. "Although not grounded in reality, the situation is very real to the person with dementia. Keep in mind that a person with dementia is trying to make sense of his or her world with declining cognitive function. A delusion is not the same thing as a hallucination. While delusions involve false beliefs, hallucinations are false perceptions of objects or events that are sensory in nature. When individuals with Alzheimer's have a hallucination, they see, hear, smell, taste or even feel something that isn't really there." <https://www.alz.org/help-support/caregiving/stages-behaviors/suspicions-delusions#:~:text=Delusions%20(firmly%20held%20beliefs%20in,contribute%20to%20these%20untrue%20beliefs.>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 02:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176291bf051fa786$34$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611614 |
On Thu, 25 May 2023 19:40:37 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/25/2023 6:06 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:05 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 5/24/2023 12:54 AM, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/23/2023 8:38 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>>>> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >>>>>>> church... >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try >>> If we live long enough similar failure comes to most of us. As >>> magnificent as the human brain is it has a shelf life, sometimes >>> longer, sometimes shorter. Yours has well and truly been and gone. >>>> There is only the matter of the degree of failure >>> occurring first and when failure happens the type of failure hardly >>> matters. One could not miss that Uncle Jane appears to be enjoying her >>> dementia. >> >> 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the >> red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought >> down his idol. He has nothing left. snip (proof of what I just stated) delusions#:~:text=Delusions%20(firmly%20held%20beliefs%20in,contribute%20to%20these%20untrue%20beliefs.> Yes my psychology degree taught me about people like you. Please tell me how travelling light 'remembers' its 'wave emission rate' at its source. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 00:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdat48FhljfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611621 |
On 5/25/2023 9:51 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2023 19:40:37 -0500, whodat wrote: <...> > Yes my psychology degree taught me about people like you. "Aggressive behaviors may be verbal or physical. They can occur suddenly, with no apparent reason, or result from a frustrating situation. While aggression can be hard to cope with, understanding that the person with Alzheimer's or dementia is not acting this way on purpose can help." <...> "Focus on feelings, not the facts. Rather than focusing on specific details, consider the person's emotions. Look for the feelings behind the words or actions." <https://www.alz.org/help-support/caregiving/stages-behaviors/agression-anger>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b417270-5553-4bab-b6e8-3b2ff7aa97b0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611629 |
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: > <...> > > Yes my psychology degree taught me about people like you. > "Aggressive behaviors may be verbal or physical. They can occur > suddenly, with no apparent reason, or result from a frustrating > situation. While aggression can be hard to cope with, understanding that > the person with Alzheimer's or dementia is not acting this way on > purpose can help." > > <...> > > "Focus on feelings, not the facts. Rather than focusing on specific > details, consider the person's emotions. Look for the feelings behind > the words or actions." > > <https://www.alz.org/help-support/caregiving/stages-behaviors/agression-anger> 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. Of course, it's usually better for stress reduction to avoid an entire bitter and angry mindset, and for example to be a grown-up and resolve differences like an adult, that in the end people kind of grow into what they grow out of. (... And mind one's own business, and not make it that of others.) Some "Golden Years" types are the most beatific, best kind of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 00:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1762d7a260face19$46$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611655 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdd0usFrmcmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611665 |
On 5/26/2023 7:11 PM, 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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763233b184d273b$102$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611666 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdfouoF9lknU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611702 |
On 5/27/2023 6:17 PM, 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. You just cannot abandon the troll approach to your difficulties. What I understand or do not isn't the topic of discussion. You've made claims here that have been refuted. Seeing me as a "weakest link" you think you can salve your ego wounded by your own inability to stand and deliver worthy support for your ideas. I'm tired of your crap and you haven't responded to any of the outstanding criticisms from me or others more expert than mine. For someone allegedly so well educated you're doing a lousy job of supporting your "thesis." Have at it woman, you'll get nowhere fast using your present approach. Dishonesty such as yours always fails. I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the other hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the mat to back them up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 19:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <358a7fbd-2d7b-45b2-a8b7-9201aaf3d2f0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611708 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the > other hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the > mat to back them up. ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow they believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need to ever do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763496946293575$184$1701657$c9d343d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611714 |
On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the other >> hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the mat to back >> them up. > > ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow they > believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need to ever > do! You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- religion forbids it.. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdhbucFh9aqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611734 |
On 5/28/2023 5:56 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> >>> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the other >>> hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the mat to back >>> them up. >> >> ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow they >> believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need to ever >> do! > > You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- > religion forbids it... Lovely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51c765c3-0ad4-4aab-908f-44dedc9e3742n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611734 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:56:46 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > >> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the other > >> hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the mat to back > >> them up. > > > > ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow they > > believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need to ever > > do! > You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- > religion forbids it.. You have not presented a single shred of evidence. Not once. Your "explanations" are not evidence, which is defined as experiments and/or observations that are repeatable by anyone with the proper tools. The scientific method makes this clear. No one is going to just take your word for anything, and this applies to everyone else, too. Talk is cheap and actual evidence rules. Got any?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1763758f18f56496$92$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611756 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:24:03 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:56:46 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> > >> >> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the >> >> other hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the >> >> mat to back them up. >> > >> > ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow >> > they believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need >> > to ever do! > >> You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- >> religion forbids it.. > > You have not presented a single shred of evidence. Not once. Your > "explanations" are not evidence, which is defined as experiments and/or > observations that are repeatable by anyone with the proper tools. The > scientific method makes this clear. No one is going to just take your > word for anything, and this applies to everyone else, too. Poor non scientist. The experiments have been done and the evidence is readily available. For instance, contrary to what was officially accepted, Michelson's 1913, produced the answer predicted by the ballistic model. It also showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during constant rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's whole approach and refutes SR. As for my light clock clarification, no such clock has ever been made...but the fact that all TWLS measurements produce almost the same answer is reasonable evidence that I am right. To actually perform a light clock experiment would be extremely difficult and costly, involving high speed space vehicles or rockets. My argument, like that of the silly relativists, was entirely logical, mathematical and geometrical. I merely corrected their blatant misinterpretation of the situation and proved their stupidity by pointing out that if a lightclock beam was sent inside a vertical pole, it could not become diagonal in the frame of a moving observer because the pole certainly does not. > Talk is cheap and actual evidence rules. Got any? I have plenty of evidence that you are a very boring individual who knows nothing about physics or the way it operates and has been totally indoctrinated by the E-religion. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0e0f45b-2277-4d62-b96f-51ceb67d0a34n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611775 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:27:41 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:24:03 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:56:46 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> > >> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> > > >> >> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the > >> >> other hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the > >> >> mat to back them up. > >> > > >> > ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow > >> > they believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need > >> > to ever do! > > > >> You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- > >> religion forbids it.. > > > > You have not presented a single shred of evidence. Not once. Your > > "explanations" are not evidence, which is defined as experiments and/or > > observations that are repeatable by anyone with the proper tools. The > > scientific method makes this clear. No one is going to just take your > > word for anything, and this applies to everyone else, too. > Poor non scientist. The experiments have been done and the evidence is > readily available. For instance, contrary to what was officially > accepted, Michelson's 1913, produced the answer predicted by the > ballistic model. It also showed that the fringe pattern remained > stationary during constant rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's > whole approach and refutes SR. > As for my light clock clarification, no such clock has ever been > made...but the fact that all TWLS measurements produce almost the same > answer is reasonable evidence that I am right. To actually perform a > light clock experiment would be extremely difficult and costly, involving > high speed space vehicles or rockets. My argument, like that of the silly > relativists, was entirely logical, mathematical and geometrical. I merely > corrected their blatant misinterpretation of the situation and proved > their stupidity by pointing out that if a lightclock beam was sent inside > a vertical pole, it could not become diagonal in the frame of a moving > observer because the pole certainly does not. > > Talk is cheap and actual evidence rules. Got any? > I have plenty of evidence that you are a very boring individual who knows > nothing about physics or the way it operates and has been totally > indoctrinated by the E-religion. This an outright lie and you cannot show otherwise. You have presented ZERO evidence in support of your claims, none at all. You are a fraud, everyone with even 2 functioning neurons can see this for themselves. You are like the stereotypical seagull manager, you fly in and shit all over everything in sight, and then fly out again... but in reality you are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog. Once again, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out... and the sooner, the better. You are a waste of perfectly good air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 21:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <241e139e-ebba-4e2f-8852-b36d76eb1d78n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611792 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:51:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:27:41 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:24:03 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:56:46 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > >> On Sat, 27 May 2023 19:27:31 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:28:35 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the > > >> >> other hand, you've mad several claims and have been called to the > > >> >> mat to back them up. > > >> > > > >> > ... Just like every other crank who darkens the door here. Somehow > > >> > they believe that supporting evidence is not something that they need > > >> > to ever do! > > > > > >> You're not able of understand my supporting evidence because your E- > > >> religion forbids it.. > > > > > > You have not presented a single shred of evidence. Not once. Your > > > "explanations" are not evidence, which is defined as experiments and/or > > > observations that are repeatable by anyone with the proper tools. The > > > scientific method makes this clear. No one is going to just take your > > > word for anything, and this applies to everyone else, too. > > Poor non scientist. The experiments have been done and the evidence is > > readily available. For instance, contrary to what was officially > > accepted, Michelson's 1913, produced the answer predicted by the > > ballistic model. It also showed that the fringe pattern remained > > stationary during constant rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's > > whole approach and refutes SR. > > As for my light clock clarification, no such clock has ever been > > made...but the fact that all TWLS measurements produce almost the same > > answer is reasonable evidence that I am right. To actually perform a > > light clock experiment would be extremely difficult and costly, involving > > high speed space vehicles or rockets. My argument, like that of the silly > > relativists, was entirely logical, mathematical and geometrical. I merely > > corrected their blatant misinterpretation of the situation and proved > > their stupidity by pointing out that if a lightclock beam was sent inside > > a vertical pole, it could not become diagonal in the frame of a moving > > observer because the pole certainly does not. > > > > Talk is cheap and actual evidence rules. Got any? > > > I have plenty of evidence that you are a very boring individual who knows > > nothing about physics or the way it operates and has been totally > > indoctrinated by the E-religion. > This an outright lie and you cannot show otherwise. > > You have presented ZERO evidence in support of your claims, none at all. > > You are a fraud, everyone with even 2 functioning neurons can see this for themselves. > > You are like the stereotypical seagull manager, you fly in and shit all over everything in sight, and then fly out again... but in reality you are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog. > > Once again, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out... and the sooner, the better. You are a waste of perfectly good air. Hey, that was pretty funny. (And it seems well-deserved!) Grandpa had this story about one of his jobs when he was a kid. One of the neighbors was a chicken farmer (who wasn't?) so he's like "build a floor in this chicken coop with this scrap wood". So he leaves to go do his real job and grandpa starts plotting out how to puzzle together all these pieces and laboriously fit them and set them and put it all together. So the guy comes back and is like "how you doing" and granddad's all "well, I made it this far". The guy inspects it a bit and goes "you know, this is pretty nice, I can tell you're doing a good job on this and making good use of the materials. But, when you're done, the chickens are just going to shit all over it". A few years later he recounts rappeling down a grain silo while assembling it. "That was pretty fun but I wouldn't want to do it again." He was a great leader of men and has a long list of people claiming to have worked for him, and I was the last. So, at lunch he would tell me some good stories or I would tell him my theories, and he kept me on for a couple years. Still, there's something to be said for the differences of the optical and the the differences of the thermally radiative, the visible, and the radio electromagnetic, and the radio nuclear, radiation and ionizing radiation, basically for unifying light with the weak and electroweak forces, i.e. that they're complementary force carriers in different regimes, kind of like atoms and electrons (holes? EMF carriers) are for the kinetic and charge, here though the point is that the electron is bradyonic <= c while the photon is tachyonic >= c, and of course the c is a constant, but that space has linear and rotational space-contraction, which affects things _variously_. So, there's really something to be said for differentiating these kinds of radiation kinetic thermal, electromagnetic radio, and optical visible, and radionuclear, then as well putting those together. Of course, it might help to already have a fall gravity to put gravity and strong nuclear together for kinetics for having the atom being the real graviton, then that physics has already sort of "unified" the strong and weak and "unified" the electrical and electroweak, about what's to go into a deconstructive account of those and helping explain why while energy is conserved and exchanged that so are states in regimes according to fields a sort of "triple-point" theory of matter and the transmutation of matter and rays, and, the flux of their photons, and, separately but really complementarily, the electric field(s) with respect to magnetic interactions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 10:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176348fb10be9f23$183$1701657$c9d343d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611708 |
On Sat, 27 May 2023 20:26:40 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/27/2023 6:17 PM, 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. > > You just cannot abandon the troll approach to your difficulties. What I > understand or do not isn't the topic of discussion. You've made claims > here that have been refuted. > None of my claims has been refuted. They have not surprisingly been opposed by the E-religion fraternity. > Seeing me as a "weakest link" you think you > can salve your ego wounded by your own inability to stand and deliver > worthy support for your ideas. I'm tired of your crap and you haven't > responded to any of the outstanding criticisms from me or others more > expert than mine. See! you cannot utter a word of science...You are terribly boring. > For someone allegedly so well educated you're doing a lousy job of > supporting your "thesis." Have at it woman, you'll get nowhere fast > using your present approach. Dishonesty such as yours always fails. I'm enjoying my visit here. I'm learning how to handle the diehard relativists who run the Physics establishment,.. > I've made no claims so I have nothing to "put up" about. On the other > hand, you've made several claims and have been called to the mat to back > them up. You have made many claims to the effect that I have not backed up my claims with fact...which is entirely untrue. I have fully wexplained everything I have posted. I could hardly be more explicit about little Tommy's light clock debacle. Or Paul Andersen's shocking error in transforming a Sagnac event from an inertial frame to a rotating one.? Why don't you just admit all of this is way above you? . -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 10:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdhbk9Fh9aqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611733 |
On 5/28/2023 5:48 AM, Jane wrote: It became "no discussion" quite some time ago, because you did what every crank in Usenet does, go off the topic and switch to ad hominem. I've been more than patient with you. In the previous version of you common ground could be found, but no more. > You have made many claims to the effect that I have not backed up my > claims with fact...which is entirely untrue. I have fully wexplained > everything I have posted. An ordinary run of the mill bald faced lie, You've fallen a long ways Jane. > I could hardly be more explicit about little > Tommy's light clock debacle. Or Paul Andersen's shocking error in > transforming a Sagnac event from an inertial frame to a rotating one.? > Why don't you just admit all of this is way above you? You've made yourself unworthy of discussion. If this continues (and in the case of cranks like you it usually does) you'll rather quickly have become not worthy of reading. That's completely up to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176375f029d0b968$93$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611745 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 10:51:36 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/28/2023 5:48 AM, Jane wrote: > > > It became "no discussion" quite some time ago, because you did what > every crank in Usenet does, go off the topic and switch to ad hominem. > I've been more than patient with you. In the previous version of you > common ground could be found, but no more. > >> You have made many claims to the effect that I have not backed up my >> claims with fact...which is entirely untrue. I have fully wexplained >> everything I have posted. > > An ordinary run of the mill bald faced lie, You've fallen a long ways > Jane. > >> I could hardly be more explicit about little Tommy's light clock >> debacle. Or Paul Andersen's shocking error in transforming a Sagnac >> event from an inertial frame to a rotating one.? >> Why don't you just admit all of this is way above you? > > You've made yourself unworthy of discussion. If this continues (and in > the case of cranks like you it usually does) you'll rather quickly have > become not worthy of reading. That's completely up to you. Since there is no hope of learning anything from you...except how ignorant Einstein worshippers are...and how they project their own lies onto others...I would naturally welcome your disappearance. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Uncle Jane Fails Again (was Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light) |
| Message-ID | <kdiee9FmcckU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611776 |
On 5/28/2023 7:32 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 10:51:36 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/28/2023 5:48 AM, Jane wrote: >> >> >> It became "no discussion" quite some time ago, because you did what >> every crank in Usenet does, go off the topic and switch to ad hominem. >> I've been more than patient with you. In the previous version of you >> common ground could be found, but no more. >> >>> You have made many claims to the effect that I have not backed up my >>> claims with fact...which is entirely untrue. I have fully wexplained >>> everything I have posted. >> >> An ordinary run of the mill bald faced lie, You've fallen a long ways >> Jane. >> >>> I could hardly be more explicit about little Tommy's light clock >>> debacle. Or Paul Andersen's shocking error in transforming a Sagnac >>> event from an inertial frame to a rotating one.? >>> Why don't you just admit all of this is way above you? >> >> You've made yourself unworthy of discussion. If this continues (and in >> the case of cranks like you it usually does) you'll rather quickly have >> become not worthy of reading. That's completely up to you. > > Since there is no hope of learning anything from you...except how > ignorant Einstein worshippers are...and how they project their own lies > onto others...I would naturally welcome your disappearance. Yes, it is past time for you to cut and run. Better luck with some other hobby because you're a complete failure at physics, all bun with no beef as your reply to Alsing clearly demonstrates. You rely on your personal misinterpretation of well accepted experiments based merely your opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web