Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395785 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-15 20:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-15 21:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-15 20:16 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-15 20:40 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-15 23:27 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 03:56 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-16 06:26 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 06:39 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-16 08:05 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:25 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-16 17:15 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-16 19:57 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-16 20:36 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 00:30 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-17 04:20 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 02:08 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 02:46 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 10:08 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 03:28 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 10:48 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-18 17:27 +0100
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:29 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 16:41 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-18 18:38 +0100
Re: KTX, another successful failure Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 16:38 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 16:46 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:32 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 18:39 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 19:31 +0200
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-17 06:57 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 11:39 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 17:56 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-17 19:14 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 19:58 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 00:38 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 01:53 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 07:40 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:16 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 18:30 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 18:42 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 21:03 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 21:24 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 22:48 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 19:11 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:39 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 16:43 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 19:46 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-19 10:55 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 16:48 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-19 20:03 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 19:31 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-20 09:53 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-20 17:15 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-20 19:03 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-20 21:03 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 04:08 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-21 18:02 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 20:17 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 12:46 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 17:25 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-23 11:47 +0000
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:04 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 23:53 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:22 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 00:21 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 00:38 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 01:55 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 07:41 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:28 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-19 11:02 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:26 -0500
Re: KTX, another successful failure "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-16 21:32 -0700
Re: KTX, another successful failure mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 01:31 -0700
Another failure to comprehend from the resident imbecile Peter Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 21:02 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5jb9$s69$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396034 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/18/2016 11:27 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> ScottPN wrote: >> >>> […] It has nothing to do with that. Relativity is clearly wrong not >>> because you just want it to be, but because it has built in >>> contradictions. Own premisses are crashing Relativity, nobody else. >> >> That is an interesting statement. Ignoring for a minute the fact that >> both theories of relativity are confirmed every single day, what do you >> think are those contradictions? > > As soon as you see the word "Tensors", you will recognize this troll. Since when a Mathematical Construct, indispensable in Relativity, is a sight for trolliness?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5211443.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #396037 |
Jim Barthel wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 11:27 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> ScottPN wrote: >>>> […] It has nothing to do with that. Relativity is clearly wrong not >>>> because you just want it to be, but because it has built in >>>> contradictions. Own premisses are crashing Relativity, nobody else. >>> That is an interesting statement. Ignoring for a minute the fact that >>> both theories of relativity are confirmed every single day, what do you >>> think are those contradictions? >> As soon as you see the word "Tensors", you will recognize this troll. > > Since when a Mathematical Construct, indispensable in Relativity, is a > sight for trolliness? A _sign_ for “trolliness” is when that word is used in the wrong context. Another sign is that the author is posting via aioe.org. There are more signs, but I think you already know them. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5j6c$s69$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396033 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > ScottPN wrote: > >> […] It has nothing to do with that. Relativity is clearly wrong not >> because you just want it to be, but because it has built in >> contradictions. Own premisses are crashing Relativity, nobody else. > > That is an interesting statement. Ignoring for a minute the fact that > both theories of relativity are confirmed every single day, what do you > think are those contradictions? Allow me to intervene. It stays clearly in the above text. Those confirmations are based on those premises taken as true, but you cannot connect them back as input, in a loop as true, as required by the Scientific Method.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5jlh$s69$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396036 |
Jim Barthel wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> ScottPN wrote: >> >>> […] It has nothing to do with that. Relativity is clearly wrong not >>> because you just want it to be, but because it has built in >>> contradictions. Own premisses are crashing Relativity, nobody else. >> >> That is an interesting statement. Ignoring for a minute the fact that >> both theories of relativity are confirmed every single day, what do you >> think are those contradictions? > > Allow me to intervene. It stays clearly in the above text. Those > confirmations are based on those premises taken as true, but you cannot > connect them back as input, in a loop as true, as required by the > Scientific Method. I can see you have difficulties. Let me elaborate. Take for instance the presumption, whereas the the acceleration in an elevator at 1g is the same as Gravity, taken place at the Earth surface. However, Relativity outputs that Gravity is completely different from an elevator. What we need is more engineers and professors, to take a look at Divergent Matter seriously, and put the necessary Math on it. But maybe you disagree again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59055280-3c70-4f00-b481-ba41e9648040@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396038 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-3, Jim Barthel wrote: > Jim Barthel wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > >> ScottPN wrote: > >> > >>> […] It has nothing to do with that. Relativity is clearly wrong not > >>> because you just want it to be, but because it has built in > >>> contradictions. Own premisses are crashing Relativity, nobody else. > >> > >> That is an interesting statement. Ignoring for a minute the fact that > >> both theories of relativity are confirmed every single day, what do you > >> think are those contradictions? > > > > Allow me to intervene. It stays clearly in the above text. Those > > confirmations are based on those premises taken as true, but you cannot > > connect them back as input, in a loop as true, as required by the > > Scientific Method. > > I can see you have difficulties. Let me elaborate. Take for instance the > presumption, whereas the the acceleration in an elevator at 1g is the same > as Gravity, taken place at the Earth surface. However, Relativity outputs > that Gravity is completely different from an elevator. > > What we need is more engineers and professors, to take a look at Divergent > Matter seriously, and put the necessary Math on it. But maybe you disagree > again. Nymshifting troll attacking again
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu5q8d$187s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396043 |
paparios wrote: >> I can see you have difficulties. Let me elaborate. Take for instance >> the presumption, whereas the the acceleration in an elevator at 1g is >> the same as Gravity, taken place at the Earth surface. However, >> Relativity outputs that Gravity is completely different from an >> elevator. >> >> What we need is more engineers and professors, to take a look at >> Divergent Matter seriously, and put the necessary Math on it. But maybe >> you disagree again. > > Nymshifting troll attacking again You just downgraded my GeForce Experience. Maybe you are not an Engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu5m9m$2mi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396036 |
On 18.10.2016 18:38, Jim Barthel wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61f93787-268c-44d9-b2cb-931e0d7527a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395882 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:08:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:36:12 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:15:42 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:25:44 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Time dilation however exists and therefore c is anisotropic. > > > > > > > > Cretin. > > > > > > > > Neither TD nor LC exist in the co-moving frame. > > > > BOTH LC AND TD are observed by NON-co-moving frames > > > > > > That is exactly what Einstein said of LC and I agree with him. I believe > > > TD exists > > > > "Believing" is insufficient. You must KNOW. > > > > > and as a consequence without LC the speed of light is anisotropic. > > > > But TD is a CONSEQUENCE of non-simultaneity, and so is LC. If you KNEW > > how to work the math, you would KNOW that LC exists also. Unfortunately, > > you don't appear to have a sufficient background in math to even do > > simple physics like this. > > SR is a believe system. ...and you are a cretin. You were born this way, you will die this way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2urt$pkq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395882 |
On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > SR is a believe system. No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what things should be believed and what things should not is experimental test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0005499-a801-4bc7-9369-4fff8e3e548c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395921 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > SR is a believe system. > > No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what > things should be believed and what things should not is experimental > test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide > what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not > thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80c3dd69-6310-4608-a15e-827ab278f73f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395970 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > SR is a believe system. > > > > No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what > > things should be believed and what things should not is experimental > > test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide > > what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not > > thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real. Cretin LC, TD EXIST for the MOVING observer. Imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b9692ac-d966-41a8-8952-7fb4f6eae295@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395971 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:14:16 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > SR is a believe system. > > > > > > No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what > > > things should be believed and what things should not is experimental > > > test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide > > > what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not > > > thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real. > > Cretin > > LC, TD EXIST for the MOVING observer. Maybe for non-comoving observers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 00:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07d7ea9b-ba58-4740-ac12-98cfb5c96994@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395975 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:58:25 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:14:16 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > SR is a believe system. > > > > > > > > No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what > > > > things should be believed and what things should not is experimental > > > > test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide > > > > what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not > > > > thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real. > > > > Cretin > > > > LC, TD EXIST for the MOVING observer. > > Maybe for non-comoving observers. "Non-comoving" is the same thing as 'moving with respect to", imbecile. How stupid are you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 01:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e29c651a-247f-4513-b340-f383e072506c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395994 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 3:38:09 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > "Non-comoving" is the same thing as 'moving with respect to". Comoving is moving at the same rate with another person or object. Non-comoving is moving at a different speed with another person or object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48c780b7-1138-4bc0-be63-c77090f2110f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396001 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:53:56 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 3:38:09 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > "Non-comoving" is the same thing as 'moving with respect to". > > Comoving is moving at the same rate with another person or object. > > Non-comoving is moving at a different speed with another person or object. Yes, so you are an idiot. No need to keep confirming it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu5ebn$k3r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395970 |
On 10/17/2016 7:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> SR is a believe system. >> >> No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what >> things should be believed and what things should not is experimental >> test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide >> what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not >> thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their > inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers > yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real. > That's not inconsistent. LC being real does not imply that comoving observers should see LC. I think you have a misperception about what "real" implies. Yes, you need to think as a scientist. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <452921c4-c507-47f3-92c9-ed30345fe3c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396025 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:16:11 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/17/2016 7:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:39:29 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 4:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> SR is a believe system. > >> > >> No sir. SR is a testable theory. In science, the way you determine what > >> things should be believed and what things should not is experimental > >> test. Period, end of story. If you are using any other metric to decide > >> what to believe and what not to believe from science, then you're not > >> thinking like a scientist. Period, end of story. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I don't need to think as a scientist to be able to understand their > > inconsistencies. Einstein said there is no LC for comoving observers > > yet SR experts point to MMX, KTX, ISX and others to insist LC is real. > > > > That's not inconsistent. LC being real does not imply that comoving > observers should see LC. I think you have a misperception about what > "real" implies. > > Yes, you need to think as a scientist. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I have the same 'misconception' as Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd91d998-68d4-493d-8062-ce3b405c7378@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396084 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 6:30:11 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > I have the same 'misconception' as Einstein. You should NEVER mention yourself and Einstein in the same sentence... just sayin'...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9918be2-a08b-4b6d-9b45-27fcfc22bfe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396085 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:42:03 AM UTC+8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 6:30:11 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > I have the same 'misconception' as Einstein. > > You should NEVER mention yourself and Einstein in the same sentence... just sayin'... Einstein is a genius, I am not. Same sentence, ok?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d1479de-b5ee-4a5b-bbe7-c8506461cd45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396090 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:03:53 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:42:03 AM UTC+8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 6:30:11 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > I have the same 'misconception' as Einstein. > > > > You should NEVER mention yourself and Einstein in the same sentence... just sayin'... > > Einstein is a genius, I am not. Same sentence, ok? More correctly, Einstein WAS a genius... unless you know something I don't :>)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web