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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370003 > unrolled thread

Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

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

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

Contents

  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:15 -0800
    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:54 -0800
      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 13:23 -0800
    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-15 21:20 +0000
      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 17:10 -0800
      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-17 21:51 +0100
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 12:57 -0800
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 19:37 -0800
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-18 09:24 -0800
        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-20 17:01 +0000
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 12:46 -0800
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:03 +0000
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:13 +0000
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2015-11-22 11:04 +1100
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 18:15 -0800
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 19:40 -0800
                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gatuzo <Gatuzo@gallaxial.com> - 2015-11-22 00:25 -0500
          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:48 +0000
            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:06 +0000
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0800
                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-23 17:27 -0800
              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:17 +0000
                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:05 +0000
                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:31 +0000
                    Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-26 10:10 +0000
                      Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 01:55 +0000
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 04:52 -0800
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 05:06 -0800
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 06:21 -0800
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 06:55 -0800
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 16:34 +0000
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 10:00 -0800
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:34 +0100
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Androcles Ghost<xx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:23 +1100
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 15:09 +0100
                          Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 14:58 +0100
                            Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:54 +1100
                              Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 23:58 +0100
                                Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:38 +0000
                                  Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 11:53 +0100
                        Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#370724

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:07:01 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:48:37 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > > Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> > > from differently moving sources.
> > 
> > What do you think is "Einstein's P2"?
> 
> What he wrote in 1905, idiot!
> 
> It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including Fitzgerald's 
> contractions in classical aether theory. The aether unified light speeds 
> form all sources and the contractions caused all observers to measure 
> light speed to have the value c. Einstein did nothing new. He just 
> plagiarized Lorentz's idea and attracted a lot of suckers with some 
> impressive Scifi. 

completely wrong, of course.  SR showed that the LT could be derived
WITHOUT assuming Lorentz's indetectable aether.  So you still hold the
title of Sophist-Monger-in-Chief.

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

#370758

W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 20:25:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 

> SR showed that the LT could be derived
> WITHOUT assuming Lorentz's indetectable aether.

By idiots only.

assumption: c = const then...
abd there some long idiotic improvisations, and finally:
the great conclusion: c = const.

That is a theory in the mainstream sense.

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

#370748

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:48:37 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>>> from differently moving sources.
>> What do you think is “Einstein's P2”?
> 
> What he wrote in 1905, idiot!

I have cited and quoted what he wrote.  You cannot have read it, otherwise 
you would not claim such nonsense.  So you are the idiot.
 
> It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including Fitzgerald's
> contractions in classical aether theory.

No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of moving 
bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:

‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous 
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely 
stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-
vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take 
place.’

Which part of that do you not understand?


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#370807

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:17:22 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:48:37 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>>>> from differently moving sources.
>>> What do you think is “Einstein's P2”?
>> 
>> What he wrote in 1905, idiot!
> 
> I have cited and quoted what he wrote.  You cannot have read it,
> otherwise you would not claim such nonsense.  So you are the idiot.
>  
>> It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including
>> Fitzgerald's contractions in classical aether theory.
> 
> No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:
> 
> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
> assign a velocity-
> vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes
> take place.’


That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot.
 
> Which part of that do you not understand?

I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you.
 
Now quote his P2.

> PointedEars

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

#370828

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:17:22 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including
>>> Fitzgerald's contractions in classical aether theory.
>> 
>> No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of moving
>> bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:
>> 
>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
>> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>> electromagnetic processes take place.’
> 
> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot.

You are still the idiot here.  This is an *exact* quotation from paragraph 2 
of the cited work.
 
>> Which part of that do you not understand?
> 
> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you.

Beats me in your case as well.
  
> Now quote his P2.

BTDT.  If only you cared to read…


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#370924

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:27 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:

>>> 
>>> No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of
>>> moving bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:
>>> 
>>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
>>> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
>>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>>> electromagnetic processes take place.’
>> 
>> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot.
> 
> You are still the idiot here.  This is an *exact* quotation from
> paragraph 2 of the cited work.
>  
>>> Which part of that do you not understand?
>> 
>> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you.
> 
> Beats me in your case as well.
>   
>> Now quote his P2.
> 
> BTDT.  If only you cared to read…

You obviously haven't read beyond paragraph 2. Was it too hard for 
you ..or did you find it too nonsensical to read?
 
I agree it is very stupid from start to finish

> 
> PointedEars

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

#370962

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:27 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>> No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of
>>>> moving bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:
>>>> 
>>>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>>>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
>>>> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
>>>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>>>> electromagnetic processes take place.’
>>> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot.
>> You are still the idiot here.  This is an *exact* quotation from
>> paragraph 2 of the cited work.
>>  
>>>> Which part of that do you not understand?
>>> 
>>> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you.
>> 
>> Beats me in your case as well.
>>   
>>> Now quote his P2.
>> 
>> BTDT.  If only you cared to read…
> 
> You obviously haven't read beyond paragraph 2.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy>

I have read beyond paragraph 2, but the issue here was *only* paragraph 2 of 
the work.  You claimed:

“Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light 
from differently moving sources.”

That is wrong, because paragraph 2 of the work says the exact opposite of 
what you claim.  And it starts with saying that attempts to detect that 
ether have been unsuccessful, and that therefore the idea of the ether 
should be abandoned:

“Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover  
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the  
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties  
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as  
has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same  
laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of  
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.¹”

“*Unsuccessful* attempts” and “*no* properties corresponding to the idea of 
absolute rest”!

> Was it too hard for you ..or did you find it too nonsensical to read?

Einstein makes a lot of sense there, but one must *want to* understand him 
first.  You don’t do either.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#370967

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:55:00 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:27 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>>> No.  Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of
>>>>> moving bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>>>>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
>>>>> require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special
>>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
>>>>> space in which electromagnetic processes take place.’
>>>> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot.
>>> You are still the idiot here.  This is an *exact* quotation from
>>> paragraph 2 of the cited work.
>>>  
>>>>> Which part of that do you not understand?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you.
>>> 
>>> Beats me in your case as well.
>>>   
>>>> Now quote his P2.
>>> 
>>> BTDT.  If only you cared to read…
>> 
>> You obviously haven't read beyond paragraph 2.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy>
> 
> I have read beyond paragraph 2, but the issue here was *only* paragraph
> 2 of the work.  You claimed:
> 
> “Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> from differently moving sources.”
> 
> That is wrong, because paragraph 2 of the work says the exact opposite
> of what you claim.  And it starts with saying that attempts to detect
> that ether have been unsuccessful, and that therefore the idea of the
> ether should be abandoned:
> 
> “Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
> suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
> possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
> suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
> small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
> valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
> hold good.¹”
> 
> “*Unsuccessful* attempts” and “*no* properties corresponding to the idea
> of absolute rest”!

That's right. that is what his first postulate is all about. You 
obviously don't understand the theory you spend all your time defending.

Do you have an ulterior motive?

Then he defines his second postulate, in which he merely states that 
light speed in space is independent of the speed of both the observer and 
the source. 
Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid. To 
claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it is 
just pathetic nonsense. 
  
  
>> Was it too hard for you ..or did you find it too nonsensical to read?
> 
> Einstein makes a lot of sense there, but one must *want to* understand
> him first.  You don’t do either.

You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or 
its blatant flaws.

> PointedEars

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

#370971

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:13:52 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid. To 
> claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it is 
> just pathetic nonsense. 

That is blatant crackpot baloney:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
fails to provide a "mechanism". 

The first thing needed is an observation of some phenomenon of the
universe.  The second thing is formulating a rule.  "Why" it happens is
NOT a requirement, as the unwashed masses believe.  Einstein provided
the observation of the phenomenon (the conductor and magnet), which
obviously leads to both P1 AND P2.  Your sophistry is claiming that if
it applies to P1 then it can't apply to P2.

> You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or 
> its blatant flaws.

You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
works, nor do you have the capability of rational thought.

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

#370973

W dniu piątek, 27 listopada 2015 13:52:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
> works

You clearly don't have the brains to understand the universe
doesn't work.

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

#370978

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:06:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 27 listopada 2015 13:52:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
> > works
> 
> You clearly don't have the brains to understand the universe
> doesn't work.

As I said, come back when you learn not to be a stupid troll.  You are
still in abysmally-stupid troll mode.

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

#370981

W dniu piątek, 27 listopada 2015 15:21:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:06:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu piątek, 27 listopada 2015 13:52:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
> > > works
> > 
> > You clearly don't have the brains to understand the universe
> > doesn't work.
> 
> As I said, come back when you learn not to be a stupid troll.  You are
> still in abysmally-stupid troll mode.

Command glowing worms, poor idiot.

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

#370983

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:52:54 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:13:52 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid.
>> To claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it
>> is just pathetic nonsense.
> 
> That is blatant crackpot baloney:
> 
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> 
> 17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
> predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
> fails to provide a "mechanism".

Constant light speed DOES NOT OCCUR. 
 
> The first thing needed is an observation of some phenomenon of the
> universe.  The second thing is formulating a rule.  "Why" it happens is
> NOT a requirement, as the unwashed masses believe.  Einstein provided
> the observation of the phenomenon (the conductor and magnet), which
> obviously leads to both P1 AND P2.  Your sophistry is claiming that if
> it applies to P1 then it can't apply to P2.

It says nothing about P2, moron.

>> You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or
>> its blatant flaws.
> 
> You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
> works, nor do you have the capability of rational thought.

I know how Enstein's universe works. Exactly the same way Lorentz's did.
He was nothing but a plagiarizign liar.

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

#370986

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 9:34:12 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:52:54 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:13:52 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid.
> >  > To claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it
> >> is just pathetic nonsense.
> > 
> > That is blatant crackpot baloney:
> > 
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> > 
> > 17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
> > predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
> > fails to provide a "mechanism".
> 
> Constant light speed DOES NOT OCCUR. 

You're crackpot assertion is contrary to the evidence.

> > The first thing needed is an observation of some phenomenon of the
> > universe.  The second thing is formulating a rule.  "Why" it happens is
> > NOT a requirement, as the unwashed masses believe.  Einstein provided
> > the observation of the phenomenon (the conductor and magnet), which
> > obviously leads to both P1 AND P2.  Your sophistry is claiming that if
> > it applies to P1 then it can't apply to P2.
> 
> It says nothing about P2, moron.

YOU are the abysmally-stupid moron, moron.  Apparently, you are too stupid
to understand reality.

> > > You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or
> > > its blatant flaws.
> > 
> > You clearly you don't have the brains to understand the way the universe
> > works, nor do you have the capability of rational thought.
> 
> I know how Enstein's universe works. Exactly the same way Lorentz's did.
> He was nothing but a plagiarizign liar.

YOU are nothing but a know-nothing, incompetent moron, moron.

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

#370990

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:42849193-8937-46d1-b458-2bedfcc6afd0@googlegroups.com...

> Constant light speed DOES NOT OCCUR.

|You're crackpot assertion is contrary to the evidence.

Unfortunately, your General Shit agrees with this crackpot assertion.
YOU are the abysmally-stupid moron, moron.  Apparently, you are too stupid
to understand reality.
YOU are nothing but a know-nothing, incompetent moron, moron. 

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

#371000

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:00:09 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Fuck off, moron

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

#371019

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 04:52:54 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:13:52 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid.
>>> To claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it
>>> is just pathetic nonsense.
>> That is blatant crackpot baloney:
>> 
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>> 
>> 17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
>> predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
>> fails to provide a "mechanism".
> 
> Constant light speed DOES NOT OCCUR.

Yes it does, in media of equal optical density.  (Because of that, in the 
medium with the least known optical density, absolute vacuum, the speed of 
light is the largest.)  That has been confirmed in experiments around the 
planet and by observations off-planet by numerous researchers countless 
times in the last 110 years since the special theory of relativity was first 
posited.

To deny all of those experiments’ results, and their effects on the 
development of modern society through technology based on it, is simply 
crackpottery.
  

PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#371017

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:55:00 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> […]  You claimed:
>> 
>> “Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>> from differently moving sources.”
>> 
>> That is wrong, because paragraph 2 of the work says the exact opposite
>> of what you claim.  And it starts with saying that attempts to detect
>> that ether have been unsuccessful, and that therefore the idea of the
>> ether should be abandoned:
>> 
>> “Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
>> discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
>> suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
>> possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
>> suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
>> small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
>> valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
>> hold good.¹”
>> 
>> “*Unsuccessful* attempts” and “*no* properties corresponding to the idea
>> of absolute rest”!
> 
> That's right. that is what his first postulate is all about.

You don’t say! :->

> […]
> Then he defines his second postulate, in which he merely states that
> light speed in space is independent of the speed of both the observer and
> the source.

So “P” means “postulate” now, not “paragraph”?

In any case, Einstein simply did not postulate what you claimed he did.

For again, you claimed:

“Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
from differently moving sources.”

And that is simply not true.  Also, Einstein did not say nor implied 
anything of the sort.

Instead, his first postulate is that because no ether has been found, 
electrodynamics does not depend on an idea of absolute motion in a 
“luminiferous ether”, and that things should work even *without* such an 
absolute ether, the same as mechanics does work without it.

Do you admit that you claimed the opposite and that were wrong about that?

Because until you do, it’s EOD for me.


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]

#371045

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:58:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Henry Wilson wrote:

>
>So “P” means “postulate” now, not “paragraph”?

P1 = first postulate
P2 = second postulate.

Why don't you and Gary Harnagel go to a small tropical island somewhere and
search for each other's brain cell.

>
>PointedEars

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

#371049

 wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:58:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>So “P” means “postulate” now, not “paragraph”?
> 
> P1 = first postulate
> P2 = second postulate.

It was a rhetorical question (followed by the argument, here omitted by you) 
as in that interpretation, Henry Wilson *is* wrong.
 
> Why don't you and Gary Harnagel go to a small tropical island somewhere
> and search for each other's brain cell.

Good question.  I for one would prefer to not meet you there.

BTW, the “From” header field value of your posting violates Internet/Usenet 
standards; see RFC 5536.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web