Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-19 14:56 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-24 06:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-19 14:56 +0200
Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 06:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:48 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:53 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-19 08:05 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 09:09 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 10:45 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 22:01 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 20:00 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 07:55 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-19 14:58 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 09:18 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 04:48 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-20 13:47 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 14:33 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:05 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 16:07 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:22 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:28 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:40 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-29 09:20 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 08:49 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-29 12:08 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 05:59 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:22 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 20:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:25 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:37 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:34 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 06:44 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-10-10 00:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 06:50 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:23 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 10:08 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 04:09 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-23 13:32 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:02 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 06:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-23 19:37 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 07:26 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 16:44 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 08:03 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 17:35 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:26 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 17:36 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-24 18:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:49 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 07:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-25 00:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:47 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 00:47 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 23:53 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 19:53 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-25 02:58 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:15 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:11 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 14:43 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 01:26 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 02:06 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:18 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 13:19 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:48 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 17:46 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 09:30 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-09-24 08:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-23 14:11 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 08:53 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 02:31 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 16:39 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 12:34 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 09:41 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 02:51 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:51 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 12:48 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 11:13 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 02:31 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 02:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 03:25 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-19 22:40 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 08:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:46 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 08:33 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 00:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 00:42 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 10:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 08:49 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 01:54 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 12:43 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-22 12:56 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:04 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:36 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 01:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 20:00 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:06 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:04 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:36 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 07:21 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:57 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 20:57 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 15:24 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 17:39 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 02:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-20 10:48 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 15:13 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-20 20:19 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 20:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 12:46 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-20 13:14 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-20 13:27 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 09:29 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 14:03 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 05:19 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-21 12:42 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 07:24 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 22:16 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:51 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:18 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 20:39 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:42 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 07:49 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 23:51 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 09:04 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 09:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-22 00:27 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 04:05 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:46 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:31 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:01 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-27 20:22 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 12:00 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 14:08 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:41 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 12:28 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:32 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:02 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-22 07:03 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 19:55 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 07:42 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-23 06:55 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-24 11:17 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-22 08:30 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-22 13:52 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 05:34 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-23 08:05 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-23 15:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-24 09:12 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-23 16:17 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-24 11:03 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 07:11 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-24 07:38 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 08:43 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 07:15 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-25 07:38 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 04:20 +1000
Re: Train gedanken - again. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-26 01:23 -0700
Re: Train gedanken - again. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-24 06:48 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 08:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opur4a$5id$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432989 |
On 20/09/17 16:08, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/09/2017 v 07:40 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a):
> Neither aether, neither ballistic.
>
> There is no place for of aether.
>
> The ballistic theory
> is in direct contradiction wit vacuum light speed invariance,
> the verified fact and presumption of the gedanken and SR.
Idiot! The invariance of vacuum TWLS is proof that BaTh is the correct theory.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <opt23t$bs8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #432988 |
Dne 20/09/2017 v 07:40 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a): > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:27:06 PM UTC+5:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > We cannot proceed further without the following qualifications: > > Is the above scenario what we would expect if > > 1) Light transmission was through an Ether which was stationary in Ralph's frame? > > 2) Light transmission takes place through ballistic emission ? If yes, then why does one set of photons choose to hit Paul on the train first? / The purpose of gedankens from the train gedanken class is to illustrate consequence of the invariant vacuum light speed for simultaneity. Both ballistic and stationary aether theories operate with variable light speed, what exclude them from the gedanken and by evidence also as theories. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 00:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f6caa66-6f65-4700-9a59-89cdecede5ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432992 |
W dniu środa, 20 września 2017 08:33:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > The purpose of gedankens from the train gedanken class > is to illustrate consequence > of the invariant vacuum light speed for simultaneity. Yes. Your gedanken are fabricated to make your sick dilusions more creditable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b99dcc63-f814-47e1-a78a-8a50cb0e95d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432992 |
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:03:35 PM UTC+5:30, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 20/09/2017 v 07:40 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a): > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:27:06 PM UTC+5:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > > We cannot proceed further without the following qualifications: > > > > Is the above scenario what we would expect if > > > > 1) Light transmission was through an Ether which was stationary in Ralph's frame? > > > > 2) Light transmission takes place through ballistic emission ? If yes, then why does one set of photons choose to hit Paul on the train first? > / > The purpose of gedankens from the train gedanken class > is to illustrate consequence > of the invariant vacuum light speed for simultaneity. > > Both ballistic and stationary aether theories > operate with variable light speed, > what exclude them from the gedanken > and by evidence also as theories. > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. First, some quotes on the Ether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories Secondly, I am not saying there is an Ether, only stating that the results are the same as if there were an Ether in the train platform.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 00:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e0d4d37-4864-40ae-9cc9-74288aeefb13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432997 |
"According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.." > > First, some quotes on the Ether. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories > > Secondly, I am not saying there is an Ether, only stating that the results are the same as if there were an Ether in the train platform.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 10:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <optabl$57r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #432999 |
Dne 20.9.2017 v 09:42 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a): > "According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.." This old song again ? When saying A, you have to say B as well. The aether mentioned in GR context has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories. The GR aether as term name choice was later realized as was unlucky and was abandoned completely. Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opur9l$5id$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433018 |
On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote:
> When saying A, you have to say B as well.
>
> The aether mentioned in GR context
> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories.
...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is unthinkable."
> The GR aether as term name choice
> was later realized as was unlucky
> and was abandoned completely.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-20 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2a743eb-0bb1-4db1-b6a9-914ee846b556@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433110 |
HGW
On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote:
> When saying A, you have to say B as well.
>
> The aether mentioned in GR context
> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories.
...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is unthinkable."
((((x GHz) * (3.71295774e-28 (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg)) = 299792458^2
((((160.390033967 GHz) * (3.71295774e-28 (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg)) = c^2
https://goo.gl/nQubSz
((((CMBR Hz) * (Friedmann Mass Density (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg)) = c^2
1/(160.390033967 GHz * 3.71295774e-28 kg / Planck's constant / c^2 )^0.5 = 1 m^2/s (square meter per second)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity
The kinematic viscosity "momentum diffusivity" is the ratio of the dynamic viscosity μ to the density of the fluid ρ. It is usually denoted by the Greek letter nu (ν) and has units m^2/s
https://goo.gl/TFyus5
> The GR aether as term name choice
> was later realized as was unlucky
> and was abandoned completely.
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 01:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1682251.tdWV9SEqCh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #433110 |
HGW wrote: > On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote: >> When saying A, you have to say B as well. >> >> The aether mentioned in GR context >> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories. > > ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is > unthinkable." Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right. You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here, we (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that Einstein was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM. That does not mean that we ignore the things about which he was *evidently* right, such as SR and GR, and a lot of other ideas and discoveries that are less known to the general public[1]. Because this is just not about Einstein or any other historical figure, not about “gurus” etc.: it is about how finding descriptions that *correctly* *describe* the universe that we live in, so that we may *better* understand it, and make *better* predictions that *help us* thrive and make *progress*. In fact, with few exceptions Einstein was his strongest critic (just count the number of “correction” in the titles in [1]). Because true scientists not only question what has been stated by others before and now, they also question themselves continuously, and correct themselves if necessary. The lifeblood of science is *well-founded* *skepticism*. ______ [1] see <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu> -- PointedEars FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix> <https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/> Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 12:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oq1tco$uqm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433258 |
On 22/09/17 09:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote:
>>> When saying A, you have to say B as well.
>>>
>>> The aether mentioned in GR context
>>> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories.
>>
>> ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is
>> unthinkable."
>
> Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right.
But he also said his whole theory would collapse if no aether existed...we already knew that because it was assumed for
the source independence requirement of his P2.
> You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here, we
> (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that Einstein
> was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM.
Great! I'm glad you have been influenced by my posts.
> That does not mean that we ignore the things about which he was *evidently*
> right, such as SR and GR, and a lot of other ideas and discoveries that are
> less known to the general public[1].
SR was a plagiarized version of Poincare's relativity, which assumed the existence
of an absolute aether.
> Because this is just not about
> Einstein or any other historical figure, not about “gurus” etc.: it is about
> how finding descriptions that *correctly* *describe* the universe that we
> live in, so that we may *better* understand it, and make *better*
> predictions that *help us* thrive and make *progress*.
No aspect of any of Einstein's theories has been useful anywhere in physics.
> In fact, with few exceptions Einstein was his strongest critic (just count
> the number of “correction” in the titles in [1]). Because true scientists
> not only question what has been stated by others before and now, they also
> question themselves continuously, and correct themselves if necessary. The
> lifeblood of science is *well-founded* *skepticism*.
Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me to prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong.
_
> [1] see <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu>
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 12:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2919823.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #433277 |
HGW wrote: > On 22/09/17 09:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote: >>>> When saying A, you have to say B as well. >>>> >>>> The aether mentioned in GR context >>>> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories. >>> ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is >>> unthinkable." >> Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right. > > But he also said his whole theory would collapse if no aether existed... Cite evidence. > we already knew that because it was assumed for the source independence > requirement of his P2. As I just have said, Einstein did not only postulate one theory. He also did not only postulate two of them, but a great many more (IIRC, the /annus mirabilis/ 1905 alone saw 5 revolutionary papers published by him, only 2 that are now counted as parts of special relativity). When you are referring to “P2”, you are referring to the second postulate of what became known as (the) special (theory of) relativity (SR). As you have been told before, the statement that you are quoting was made, if at all (you have not cited evidence yet), in reference to *general* relativity. Because Einstein explicitly writes in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, the first paper of the body of work that we now call “special relativity”, that that paper makes the assumption of the ether superfluous. Those are two different theories, and two different ethers are meant. You would be well to finally realize that. >> You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here, >> we (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that >> Einstein was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM. > > Great! I'm glad you have been influenced by my posts. You are suffering from megalomania. I was aware of Einstein’s errors long before I read a posting from you. In contrast to you, however, I was also aware of his many more accomplishments. >> That does not mean that we ignore the things about which he was >> *evidently* right, such as SR and GR, and a lot of other ideas and >> discoveries that are less known to the general public[1]. > > SR was a plagiarized version of Poincare's relativity, No, it was not. To begin with, Poincaré introduced the term principle of relativity, but he failed to realize that, if one combines that with “P2” (principle of light constancy), his assumption of an ether endowed with /ad hoc/ properties becomes superfluous. > which assumed the existence of an absolute aether. And that is one reason why special relativity is not plagiarism. Another is that Einstein, reportedly being terrible at French and other foreign languages at the time, could have learned from Poincaré’s idea only through a (German-speaking) intermediary. Besides, it happens often in science that two or more people independently come to the same or similar conclusions; that is one reason why the Nobel Prize can be shared among up to three people. Because as knowledge is shared in the scientific community, it is likely that two people use the same body of knowledge, and sometimes conclusions are inevitable. As someone (Lorentz or Einstein, I think) said, if Einstein had not discovered special relativity, someone else would have. IIRC the expression used was “the time was ripe for the discovery”. >> Because this is just not about Einstein or any other historical figure, >> not about “gurus” etc.: it is about how finding descriptions that >> *correctly* *describe* the universe that we live in, so that we may >> *better* understand it, and make *better* predictions that *help us* >> thrive and make *progress*. > > No aspect of any of Einstein's theories has been useful anywhere in > physics. Patently untrue. >> In fact, with few exceptions Einstein was his strongest critic (just >> count >> the number of “correction” in the titles in [1]). Because true >> scientists not only question what has been stated by others before and >> now, they also >> question themselves continuously, and correct themselves if necessary. >> The lifeblood of science is *well-founded* *skepticism*. > > Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me to > prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _ But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the difference. -- PointedEars FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix> <https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/> Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9db96b49-09a9-49da-a3dd-5a0775b2c199@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433318 |
Thomas Lahn wrote You are suffering from megalomania. I was aware of Einstein’s errors long before I read a posting from you. In contrast to you, however, I was also aware of his many more accomplishments. megalomania Leftist Metal Fans https://youtube.com/watch?v=QsQHBHwPe-c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-23 07:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oq3voq$blp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433318 |
On 22/09/17 20:56, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 22/09/17 09:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> HGW wrote:
>>>> On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote:
>>>>> When saying A, you have to say B as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The aether mentioned in GR context
>>>>> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories.
>>>> ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is
>>>> unthinkable."
>>> Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right.
>>
>> But he also said his whole theory would collapse if no aether existed...
>
> Cite evidence.
>
>> we already knew that because it was assumed for the source independence
>> requirement of his P2.
>
> As I just have said, Einstein did not only postulate one theory. He also
> did not only postulate two of them, but a great many more (IIRC, the /annus
> mirabilis/ 1905 alone saw 5 revolutionary papers published by him, only 2
> that are now counted as parts of special relativity).
>
> When you are referring to “P2”, you are referring to the second postulate of
> what became known as (the) special (theory of) relativity (SR). As you have
> been told before, the statement that you are quoting was made, if at all
> (you have not cited evidence yet), in reference to *general* relativity.
>
> Because Einstein explicitly writes in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving
> Bodies”, the first paper of the body of work that we now call “special
> relativity”, that that paper makes the assumption of the ether superfluous.
>
> Those are two different theories, and two different ethers are meant.
> You would be well to finally realize that.
>
>>> You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here,
>>> we (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that
>>> Einstein was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM.
>>
>> Great! I'm glad you have been influenced by my posts.
>
> You are suffering from megalomania. I was aware of Einstein’s errors long
> before I read a posting from you. In contrast to you, however, I was also
> aware of his many more accomplishments.
>
>>> That does not mean that we ignore the things about which he was
>>> *evidently* right, such as SR and GR, and a lot of other ideas and
>>> discoveries that are less known to the general public[1].
>>
>> SR was a plagiarized version of Poincare's relativity,
>
> No, it was not. To begin with, Poincaré introduced the term principle of
> relativity, but he failed to realize that, if one combines that with “P2”
> (principle of light constancy), his assumption of an ether endowed with
> /ad hoc/ properties becomes superfluous.
The word 'superfluous' does not imply non-existence. Poincare did not say it was superfluous for the simple reason that
its existence is paramount. It is responsible for the unification of all light speeds, without which, MEASURED 'light
speed constancy'(using fictitious LTs) cannot happen.
Einstein was a plagiarizing opportunist whose deception was snapped up by other lackeys who jumped on the 'no-aether'
bandwaggon.
>> which assumed the existence of an absolute aether.
>
> And that is one reason why special relativity is not plagiarism. Another is
> that Einstein, reportedly being terrible at French and other foreign
> languages at the time, could have learned from Poincaré’s idea only through
> a (German-speaking) intermediary.
He obviously did that.
> Besides, it happens often in science that two or more people independently
> come to the same or similar conclusions; that is one reason why the Nobel
> Prize can be shared among up to three people. Because as knowledge is
> shared in the scientific community, it is likely that two people use the
> same body of knowledge, and sometimes conclusions are inevitable.
Einstein didn't discover anything. He stole his theory almost word for word from Poincare....It is completely wrong
anyway because there is NO aether.
> As someone (Lorentz or Einstein, I think) said, if Einstein had not
> discovered special relativity, someone else would have. IIRC the expression
> used was “the time was ripe for the discovery”.
Galileo discovered relativity, Newton discovered relativity, Poincare discovered relativity....Einstein stuffed up
relativity.
>>> Because this is just not about Einstein or any other historical figure,
>>> not about “gurus” etc.: it is about how finding descriptions that
>>> *correctly* *describe* the universe that we live in, so that we may
>>> *better* understand it, and make *better* predictions that *help us*
>>> thrive and make *progress*.
>>
>> No aspect of any of Einstein's theories has been useful anywhere in
>> physics.
>
> Patently untrue.
The differences are too small to be significant.
>>> In fact, with few exceptions Einstein was his strongest critic (just
>>> count
>>> the number of “correction” in the titles in [1]). Because true
>>> scientists not only question what has been stated by others before and
>>> now, they also
>>> question themselves continuously, and correct themselves if necessary.
>>> The lifeblood of science is *well-founded* *skepticism*.
>>
>> Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me to
>> prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _
>
> But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the
> scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the
> difference.
I have been employing scientific methods to variable star analysis for twenty years and have established quite
conclusively that light speed is source dependent, at least across empty space.
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-27 01:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <09330e48-b722-d9ef-d395-43318b9c069c@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #433393 |
HGW wrote: > On 22/09/17 20:56, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> SR was a plagiarized version of Poincare's relativity, >> >> No, it was not. To begin with, Poincaré introduced the term principle >> of relativity, but he failed to realize that, if one combines that with >> “P2” (principle of light constancy), his assumption of an ether endowed >> with /ad hoc/ properties becomes superfluous. > > The word 'superfluous' does not imply non-existence. Irrelevant. > Poincare did not say it was superfluous for the simple reason that > its existence is paramount. Very obviously it is not. > It is responsible for the unification of all light speeds, without which, > MEASURED 'light speed constancy'(using fictitious LTs) cannot happen. Nonsense. >> Besides, it happens often in science that two or more people >> independently come to the same or similar conclusions; that is one >> reason why the Nobel Prize can be shared among up to three people. >> Because as knowledge is shared in the scientific community, it is >> likely that two people use the same body of knowledge, and sometimes >> conclusions are inevitable. > > Einstein didn't discover anything. He stole his theory almost word for > word from Poincare.... Cite evidence. > It is completely wrong anyway because there is NO aether. Once again: Einstein did _not_ assume an ether in formulating special relativity; he started out with assuming that *there* *is* *no* *ether*. He *explicitly* said and showed that the ether is a *superfluous* assumption. Now you are saying that special relativity is *wrong* “because there is NO ether”. You are not going to find the logic in your argument even with an electron miscroscope. >> As someone (Lorentz or Einstein, I think) said, if Einstein had not >> discovered special relativity, someone else would have. IIRC the >> expression used was “the time was ripe for the discovery”. > > Galileo discovered relativity, True. > Newton discovered relativity, No. Actually, Newton was reluctant to fully incorporate Galilean relativity into his theories. Because if had he done that, his idea of absolute space and time, that was driven by his predilection for mysticism, would have had fallen apart already. > Poincare discovered relativity.... Poincaré applied Galilean relativity, but using different assumptions than Einstein. > Einstein stuffed up relativity. No, Einstein discovered *special* relativity and *general* relativity. Regarding special relativity, even Lorentz said so: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#Special_relativity_3> >>>> Because this is just not about Einstein or any other historical >>>> figure, not about “gurus” etc.: it is about how finding >>>> descriptions that *correctly* *describe* the universe that we live >>>> in, so that we may *better* understand it, and make *better* >>>> predictions that *help us* thrive and make *progress*. >>> No aspect of any of Einstein's theories has been useful anywhere in >>> physics. >> Patently untrue. > > The differences are too small to be significant. I have already shown that the differences between Newtonian mechanics and observed reality are *huge* when the relative speeds approach the speed of light, by example of the LHC. You are not paying attention. >>> Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me >>> to prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _ >> >> But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the >> scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the >> difference. > > I have been employing scientific methods to variable star analysis for > twenty years and have established quite conclusively that light speed is > source dependent, at least across empty space. Cite your paper(s). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-27 20:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oqfsr5$1f1p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433993 |
On 27/09/17 09:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>>
>> The differences are too small to be significant.
>
> I have already shown that the differences between Newtonian mechanics and
> observed reality are *huge* when the relative speeds approach the speed of
> light, by example of the LHC. You are not paying attention.
yes we know all about that. Ther are purely MNewtonian explanations for all those claimed effects.
>>>> Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me
>>>> to prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _
>>>
>>> But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the
>>> scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the
>>> difference.
>>
>> I have been employing scientific methods to variable star analysis for
>> twenty years and have established quite conclusively that light speed is
>> source dependent, at least across empty space.
>
> Cite your paper(s).
http://www.scisite.info/books/Bath/bath.html
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-27 12:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1637818.atdPhlSkOF@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #434049 |
HGW wrote: > On 27/09/17 09:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> The differences are too small to be significant. >> I have already shown that the differences between Newtonian mechanics and >> observed reality are *huge* when the relative speeds approach the speed >> of light, by example of the LHC. You are not paying attention. > > yes we know all about that. You did not. I doubt you have even read that posting. > Ther are purely MNewtonian explanations for all those claimed effects. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Bad writer, bad thinker.) You are not paying attention. I have done the calculation of the speed of a proton in the LHC using Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. Newtonian mechanics gives a relative speed that is more than a hundred times the speed of light. Relativistic mechanics gives a relative speed that is less than, but close to, the speed of light. We measure the *latter* speed. This *experimental* result *falsifies* Newtonian mechanics. >>>>> Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me >>>>> to prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _ >>>> But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the >>>> scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the >>>> difference. >>> I have been employing scientific methods to variable star analysis for >>> twenty years and have established quite conclusively that light speed is >>> source dependent, at least across empty space. >> Cite your paper(s). > > http://www.scisite.info/books/Bath/bath.html That nonsense has already been refuted a thousand times or so already. Try something new. PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-28 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oqhca5$5la$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434118 |
On 27/09/17 20:06, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 27/09/17 09:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> HGW wrote:
>>>> The differences are too small to be significant.
>>> I have already shown that the differences between Newtonian mechanics and
>>> observed reality are *huge* when the relative speeds approach the speed
>>> of light, by example of the LHC. You are not paying attention.
>>
>> yes we know all about that.
>
> You did not. I doubt you have even read that posting.
>
>> Ther are purely MNewtonian explanations for all those claimed effects.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (Bad writer, bad thinker.)
>
> You are not paying attention. I have done the calculation of the speed of a
> proton in the LHC using Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. Newtonian
> mechanics gives a relative speed that is more than a hundred times the speed
> of light.
Rubbish, it is just the sum of the two opposite speeds relative to the apparatus.
> Relativistic mechanics gives a relative speed that is less than,
> but close to, the speed of light.
>
> We measure the *latter* speed. This *experimental* result *falsifies*
> Newtonian mechanics.
What crap. The OW speed of particle in both directions simply adds. You are referring to bogus estimates based on energy
considerations. Most of the energy is tied up in maintaining the WRFB (Wilson Reverse Field Bubble) that builds up
around the particles.
>>>>>> Of course...It was my own skepticism and perseverance that enabled me
>>>>>> to prove Einstein's theory impossible and wrong. _
>>>>> But your skepticism is not well-founded. You are not employing the
>>>>> scientific method, and your arguments are all fallacies. That is the
>>>>> difference.
>>>> I have been employing scientific methods to variable star analysis for
>>>> twenty years and have established quite conclusively that light speed is
>>>> source dependent, at least across empty space.
>>> Cite your paper(s).
>>
>> http://www.scisite.info/books/Bath/bath.html
>
> That nonsense has already been refuted a thousand times or so already.
The 'nonsense refutes all your claimed refutations.
> Try something new.
Nothing, no matter how new or factual would convince an idiot that light or a radio signal does not oscillate during travel.
> PointedEars
>
--
HGW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-28 03:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4035636.cEBGB3zze1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #434188 |
HGW wrote: > On 27/09/17 20:06, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> You are not paying attention. I have done the calculation of the speed >> of a proton in the LHC using Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. >> Newtonian mechanics gives a relative speed that is more than a hundred >> times the speed of light. > > Rubbish, it is just the sum of the two opposite speeds relative to the > apparatus. There are no “two opposite speeds” there. You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. Then again, this is a *news*group, so I probably should not say that. PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d113c3b-66c0-437a-835a-fa60e2283411@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433258 |
On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 5:24:53 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HGW wrote: > > > On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote: > >> When saying A, you have to say B as well. > >> > >> The aether mentioned in GR context > >> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories. > > > > ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is > > unthinkable." > > Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right. > > You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here, we > (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that Einstein > was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM. > That's ironic. You are saying that you who are "working in science and truly interested in science" now know that Einstein was "wrong" yet when "crackpots" claim that Einstein was wrong, they are crackpots. Maybe they are talking about different things. > > That does not mean that we ignore the things about which he was *evidently* > right, such as SR and GR, and a lot of other ideas and discoveries that are > less known to the general public[1]. Because this is just not about > Einstein or any other historical figure, not about “gurus” etc.: it is about > how finding descriptions that *correctly* *describe* the universe that we > live in, so that we may *better* understand it, and make *better* > predictions that *help us* thrive and make *progress*. I accept that. > > In fact, with few exceptions Einstein was his strongest critic (just count > the number of “correction” in the titles in [1]). Because true scientists > not only question what has been stated by others before and now, they also > question themselves continuously, and correct themselves if necessary. The > lifeblood of science is *well-founded* *skepticism*. > I think the problem is confusing science (Provisional Truth) with religion (Absolute Truth). That said, there are many who treat science like religion. Ah well. Maybe the correct thing to say is that unlike the Pope, Einstein is not infallible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 07:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oq26kr$9n3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433293 |
Dne 22/09/2017 v 05:36 gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com napsal(a): > On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 5:24:53 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >> >>> On 20/09/17 18:54, Poutnik wrote: >>>> When saying A, you have to say B as well. >>>> >>>> The aether mentioned in GR context >>>> has nothing in common with luminoferous aether of aether theories. >>> >>> ...then why did Einstein say, "a universe without an aether is >>> unthinkable." >> >> Because he thought so. That does not mean that he was right. >> >> You see, contrary to popular belief, and the whinings of crackpots here, we >> (working in science and truly interested in science) now know that Einstein >> was *wrong* about *many* things, e.g. QM. >> > That's ironic. You are saying that you who are "working in science and truly interested in science" now know that Einstein was "wrong" yet when "crackpots" claim that Einstein was wrong, they are crackpots. Maybe they are talking about different things. Why maybe ? Being wrong is very vague itself, so probability different things are meant is very high. One fact is, Einstein was wrong about QM at some time. Another fact is, QM is relativistic since 1950s or so. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web