Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <set...@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 10:05 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:34 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune strikes again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 12:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-07 21:48 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 13:13 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:42 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:06 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:50 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:07 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 20:07 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 21:25 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 10:21 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:45 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700
Stephane Baune poser strikes again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 12:50 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 13:46 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 08:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:52 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 08:33 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:53 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:11 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 11:02 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-08 20:47 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 14:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:36 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:48 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-12 06:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:13 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:45 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:35 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:41 -0700
SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 06:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 10:59 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <780c04d9-fb8f-4ce1-9ea9-6e33a5e1a3d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363317 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 września 2015 05:19:18 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > Yes. And indeed LET is consistent with EVERY experiment that is consistent with SR LET is cosistent with many more experiments, because it's a full formal theory, not only a particular model like the SR is. > because the EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS of LET are identical to those of SR, in every case. But the FOUNDATION of LET is quite different from that of SR, as is its theoretical structure. No, there is no differences but only under local conditions - the SR, and the whole relativity, is a local model only. Thus the anomalies - just in the non-local measurements, like in the case of the flyby anomaly, for example, where the SR is unable to resolve at all, but in the LET it's just normal - trivial problem... > The fact that the Lorentz transforms form a group implies that: > A) any inertial frame can serve equally well as the ether frame. > B) no possible experiment can discover which frame is the ether frame. The both are plainly wrong. There are multum of methods to detect the ether frame! > [@] From the viewpoint of LET this is happenstance. From the > viewpoint of SR it is essential and inherent due to the > symmetry of the world. Your stupidity is symmetric. The hiperbolic - Mincovski is just primitive algebraic system, similar to many other, for example the complex plane... which is strongly utilised in the theories, so: do you live in the complex plane because taht?! Of coures, no... you live rather in the Fourier's phase space... :). > A major objection to LET is that it is inherently based on an "unmoved mover" > [#] -- the ether. Another objection is that having an inherently unobservable > basis is unseemly. > [#] See Aristotle. Nonsenses... the Lorentz ether is just stationary, say like a solid. Moved unmoving mover... hehe! Heya, Benny Hill! > Essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on Lorentz invariance. Yes, it's based on the... light waves, which preserve hardly, the tremendously complicated relation: r = ct. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tqmruada3vfd5e01b87rabfklsop7l7dug@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363380 |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu poniedzialek, 7 wrzesnia 2015 05:19:18 UTC+2 uzytkownik tjrob137
>
>> Yes. And indeed LET is consistent with EVERY experiment that is consistent with SR
>
>LET is cosistent with many more experiments,
>because it's a full formal theory, not only a particular model like the SR is.
It is a wrong theory, because an ether is not needed,
and not used in SR.
It is really a stupid theory, that is why you talk about it.
You can be sure Lorentz would agree it was wrong.
>> because the EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS of LET are identical to those of SR, in every case. But the FOUNDATION of LET is quite different from that of SR, as is its theoretical structure.
>
>No, there is no differences but only under local conditions -
>the SR, and the whole relativity, is a local model only.
It is time for you to learn the facts you are missing,
there is no ether, and clocks do not change because
of inertial motion relative to the trillions of other objects
in the universe.
>Thus the anomalies - just in the non-local measurements,
>like in the case of the flyby anomaly, for example,
>where the SR is unable to resolve at all,
>but in the LET it's just normal - trivial problem...
LET is wrong because there is no ether,
and no ether is needed for physics.
>> The fact that the Lorentz transforms form a group implies that:
>> A) any inertial frame can serve equally well as the ether frame.
>> B) no possible experiment can discover which frame is the ether frame.
>
>The both are plainly wrong.
>
>There are multum of methods to detect the ether frame!
>
>> [@] From the viewpoint of LET this is happenstance. From the
>> viewpoint of SR it is essential and inherent due to the
>> symmetry of the world.
>
>Your stupidity is symmetric.
>
>The hiperbolic - Mincovski is just primitive algebraic system,
>similar to many other, for example the complex plane...
>which is strongly utilised in the theories, so:
>do you live in the complex plane because taht?!
The math does not change anything,
motion can only change what light signals show,
that is why the speed of light is in the math,
without the effect of the light signal changing,
the math is Galilean.
>Of coures, no... you live rather in the Fourier's phase space... :).
>
>> A major objection to LET is that it is inherently based on an "unmoved mover"
>> [#] -- the ether. Another objection is that having an inherently unobservable
>> basis is unseemly.
>> [#] See Aristotle.
>
>Nonsenses... the Lorentz ether is just stationary, say like a solid.
>Moved unmoving mover... hehe!
>Heya, Benny Hill!
>
>> Essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on Lorentz invariance.
>
>Yes, it's based on the... light waves,
>which preserve hardly, the tremendously complicated relation: r = ct. :)
Which don't affect clocks or the lengths of objects,
Get a clue, rid yourself of the fixations, take a class
with a teacher with a clear mind and understanding,
SR is simple, no ether is needed, and LET is wrong
even if it gives the right answers,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3f2492c-163c-4392-906c-d04ca51def8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363385 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 września 2015 20:56:44 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer napisał: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > >W dniu poniedzialek, 7 wrzesnia 2015 05:19:18 UTC+2 uzytkownik tjrob137 > > > >> Yes. And indeed LET is consistent with EVERY experiment that is consistent with SR > > > >LET is cosistent with many more experiments, > >because it's a full formal theory, not only a particular model like the SR is. > > It is a wrong theory, because an ether is not needed, > and not used in SR. > > It is really a stupid theory, that is why you talk about it. > You can be sure Lorentz would agree it was wrong. > > > >> because the EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS of LET are identical to those of SR, in every case. But the FOUNDATION of LET is quite different from that of SR, as is its theoretical structure. > > > >No, there is no differences but only under local conditions - > >the SR, and the whole relativity, is a local model only. > > It is time for you to learn the facts you are missing, > there is no ether, and clocks do not change because > of inertial motion relative to the trillions of other objects > in the universe. > > > >Thus the anomalies - just in the non-local measurements, > >like in the case of the flyby anomaly, for example, > >where the SR is unable to resolve at all, > >but in the LET it's just normal - trivial problem... > > LET is wrong because there is no ether, > and no ether is needed for physics. > > > >> The fact that the Lorentz transforms form a group implies that: > >> A) any inertial frame can serve equally well as the ether frame. > >> B) no possible experiment can discover which frame is the ether frame. > > > >The both are plainly wrong. > > > >There are multum of methods to detect the ether frame! > > > >> [@] From the viewpoint of LET this is happenstance. From the > >> viewpoint of SR it is essential and inherent due to the > >> symmetry of the world. > > > >Your stupidity is symmetric. > > > >The hiperbolic - Mincovski is just primitive algebraic system, > >similar to many other, for example the complex plane... > >which is strongly utilised in the theories, so: > >do you live in the complex plane because taht?! > > The math does not change anything, > motion can only change what light signals show, > that is why the speed of light is in the math, > without the effect of the light signal changing, > the math is Galilean. > > > >Of coures, no... you live rather in the Fourier's phase space... :). > > > >> A major objection to LET is that it is inherently based on an "unmoved mover" > >> [#] -- the ether. Another objection is that having an inherently unobservable > >> basis is unseemly. > >> [#] See Aristotle. > > > >Nonsenses... the Lorentz ether is just stationary, say like a solid. > >Moved unmoving mover... hehe! > >Heya, Benny Hill! > > > >> Essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on Lorentz invariance. > > > >Yes, it's based on the... light waves, > >which preserve hardly, the tremendously complicated relation: r = ct. :) > > Which don't affect clocks or the lengths of objects, > Get a clue, rid yourself of the fixations, take a class > with a teacher with a clear mind and understanding, > SR is simple, no ether is needed, and LET is wrong > even if it gives the right answers, Do you pretend to be a fool, boy? Do not talk to me like that, any more... I don't like posers, even more than cretins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9dtrua95kc5fn51rbcn2pji3m0i9atufd0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363393 |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu poniedzialek, 7 wrzesnia 2015 20:56:44 UTC+2 uzytkownik kefischer napisal:
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>>
>> >W dniu poniedzialek, 7 wrzesnia 2015 05:19:18 UTC+2 uzytkownik tjrob137
>> >
>> >> Yes. And indeed LET is consistent with EVERY experiment that is consistent with SR
>> >
>> >LET is cosistent with many more experiments,
>> >because it's a full formal theory, not only a particular model like the SR is.
>>
>> It is a wrong theory, because an ether is not needed,
>> and not used in SR.
>>
>> It is really a stupid theory, that is why you talk about it.
>> You can be sure Lorentz would agree it was wrong.
>>
>>
>> >> because the EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS of LET are identical to those of SR, in every case. But the FOUNDATION of LET is quite different from that of SR, as is its theoretical structure.
>> >
>> >No, there is no differences but only under local conditions -
>> >the SR, and the whole relativity, is a local model only.
>>
>> It is time for you to learn the facts you are missing,
>> there is no ether, and clocks do not change because
>> of inertial motion relative to the trillions of other objects
>> in the universe.
>>
>>
>> >Thus the anomalies - just in the non-local measurements,
>> >like in the case of the flyby anomaly, for example,
>> >where the SR is unable to resolve at all,
>> >but in the LET it's just normal - trivial problem...
>>
>> LET is wrong because there is no ether,
>> and no ether is needed for physics.
>>
>>
>> >> The fact that the Lorentz transforms form a group implies that:
>> >> A) any inertial frame can serve equally well as the ether frame.
>> >> B) no possible experiment can discover which frame is the ether frame.
>> >
>> >The both are plainly wrong.
>> >
>> >There are multum of methods to detect the ether frame!
>> >
>> >> [@] From the viewpoint of LET this is happenstance. From the
>> >> viewpoint of SR it is essential and inherent due to the
>> >> symmetry of the world.
>> >
>> >Your stupidity is symmetric.
>> >
>> >The hiperbolic - Mincovski is just primitive algebraic system,
>> >similar to many other, for example the complex plane...
>> >which is strongly utilised in the theories, so:
>> >do you live in the complex plane because taht?!
>>
>> The math does not change anything,
>> motion can only change what light signals show,
>> that is why the speed of light is in the math,
>> without the effect of the light signal changing,
>> the math is Galilean.
>>
>>
>> >Of coures, no... you live rather in the Fourier's phase space... :).
>> >
>> >> A major objection to LET is that it is inherently based on an "unmoved mover"
>> >> [#] -- the ether. Another objection is that having an inherently unobservable
>> >> basis is unseemly.
>> >> [#] See Aristotle.
>> >
>> >Nonsenses... the Lorentz ether is just stationary, say like a solid.
>> >Moved unmoving mover... hehe!
>> >Heya, Benny Hill!
>> >
>> >> Essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on Lorentz invariance.
>> >
>> >Yes, it's based on the... light waves,
>> >which preserve hardly, the tremendously complicated relation: r = ct. :)
>>
>> Which don't affect clocks or the lengths of objects,
>> Get a clue, rid yourself of the fixations, take a class
>> with a teacher with a clear mind and understanding,
>> SR is simple, no ether is needed, and LET is wrong
>> even if it gives the right answers,
>
>Do you pretend to be a fool, boy?
>
>Do not talk to me like that, any more...
>I don't like posers, even more than cretins.
Yeah, I see, you are different, you are
hopeless, like a couple of others here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f16604ee-e146-489f-b5e9-2638f1b17e67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363410 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 września 2015 22:39:14 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer > Yeah, I see, you are different, you are > hopeless, like a couple of others here. I see you too: you just aspire to be a genius in the pseudoscience. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61d1b594-9e9b-4648-b694-18ff6b756301@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363286 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:33:38 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/6/15 9/6/15 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > > SR is just a different name for LET. > > Nope. Just plain wrong. > > In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not (ironic, isn't > it, because LET stands for Lorentz Ether Theory -- that guy really got > around...). Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key concept of > LET is its completely unobservable ether. Wrong..... the SR symmetry never been observed experimentally. It is assumed and such assumption give rise to ridiculus concepts as mutual time dilation and mutual length contraction. The ether had been observed in many past experiments. example of of these are described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > Without Lorentz invariance, it would have been essentially impossible to > discover the mainstays of modern theoretical physics: the standard model of > particle physics and General Relativity. With the ether and Without SR I was able to discover Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature.....including gravity. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ob6dnWfTC6KYnnDInZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363295 |
On 9/6/15 9/6/15 7:35 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:33:38 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/6/15 9/6/15 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> SR is just a different name for LET.
>>
>> Nope. Just plain wrong.
>>
>> In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not (ironic, isn't
>> it, because LET stands for Lorentz Ether Theory -- that guy really got
>> around...). Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key concept of
>> LET is its completely unobservable ether.
>
> Wrong..... the SR symmetry never been observed experimentally.[...]
That's merely due to your INCREDIBLE AND COMPREHENSIVE IGNORANCE.
Lorentz invariance is observed every day at accelerators around the world (plus
many other ways). Those accelerators simply would not work if SR was not an
accurate model of the world we inhabit.
Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d131b98-46cc-44fb-b222-e1dab4868273@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363318 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:22:48 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/6/15 9/6/15 7:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:33:38 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 9/6/15 9/6/15 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> SR is just a different name for LET. > >> > >> Nope. Just plain wrong. > >> > >> In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not (ironic, isn't > >> it, because LET stands for Lorentz Ether Theory -- that guy really got > >> around...). Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key concept of > >> LET is its completely unobservable ether. > > > > Wrong..... the SR symmetry never been observed experimentally.[...] > > That's merely due to your INCREDIBLE AND COMPREHENSIVE IGNORANCE. > > Lorentz invariance is observed every day at accelerators around the world (plus > many other ways). SR symmetry never been tested from the point of view of the accelerationg particle. Accelerators work because accelerated particle has a longer decay length than the same particle at rest in the lab. The higher decay length of the accelerated particle is due to higher state of absolute motion afer acceleration. Those accelerators simply would not work if SR was not an > accurate model of the world we inhabit. > > > Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots > around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, > without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. > I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may > not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable > and unwilling to learn anything. Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf OR http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2j4ruah3p9hfrakjrb9kog58fv8i640q45@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363346 |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 06:21:16 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:22:48 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/6/15 9/6/15 7:35 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:33:38 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> >> On 9/6/15 9/6/15 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> >>> SR is just a different name for LET.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Just plain wrong.
>> >>
>> >> In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not (ironic, isn't
>> >> it, because LET stands for Lorentz Ether Theory -- that guy really got
>> >> around...). Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key concept of
>> >> LET is its completely unobservable ether.
>> >
>> > Wrong..... the SR symmetry never been observed experimentally.[...]
>>
>> That's merely due to your INCREDIBLE AND COMPREHENSIVE IGNORANCE.
>>
>> Lorentz invariance is observed every day at accelerators around the world (plus
>> many other ways).
>
>SR symmetry never been tested from the point of view of the accelerationg particle. Accelerators work because accelerated particle has a longer decay length than the same particle at rest in the lab. The higher decay length of the accelerated particle is due to higher state of absolute motion afer acceleration.
>
>Those accelerators simply would not work if SR was not an
>> accurate model of the world we inhabit.
>>
>>
>> Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots
>> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>> and unwilling to learn anything.
>
>Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist.
>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>OR
>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
I understand now, Ken, you are practicing to be,
a stand-up comedian. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <682be866-17f3-4927-85f3-5ad2c226f30d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363348 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:35:35 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 06:21:16 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net> > >http://www.modlemechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >OR > >http://www.modlemechanics.org/2011unification.pdf > > I understand now, Ken, you are practicing to be, > a stand-up comedian. :-) Yes, he is funny. Thats why I allow him to continue to post here. Btw, did you notice that the above links dont work!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msn9ul$g2v$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363346 |
On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > SR symmetry never been tested from the point of view of the accelerationg particle. That's not true, either. It HAS been tested from the point of view of the particle, when it collides with other particles. Perhaps you're not aware of how the symmetry exhibits itself. But the fact remains that accelerators are only ONE application of Lorentz symmetry. There are scores of applications where it is demonstrated. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msna1l$g2v$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363346 |
On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and > improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is not a good scientist. So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f55ead85-3337-46d9-98ed-b695691b775b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363488 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and > > improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. > > Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means > learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, > unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is > not a good scientist. Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist....Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. > > So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have > been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mspkf7$jpj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363562 |
On 9/9/2015 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and >>> improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. >> >> Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means >> learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, >> unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is >> not a good scientist. > > Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist. > ...Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. > You are complaining that you do not get the attention you desire. You believe that anyone that is a good scientist would give you the attention you desire and that anyone that doesn't give you that attention is not a good scientist. Sorry, but you do not have the right to attention. You don't have the right to attention because you have not invested any of the required effort to earn that attention. You have not even studied elementary physics, and you have not bothered to learn basic arithmetic skills. Instead, you have simply declared those things are not important and declared that you are competent anyway. Such a person has not earned attention. > >> >> So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have >> been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? Well? Have you learned all the alternative ideas that have been explained in NPA proceedings? Yes or no? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ca57439-6074-492b-9070-3dd60a221cd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363565 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2015 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and > >>> improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. > >> > >> Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means > >> learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, > >> unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is > >> not a good scientist. > > > > Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist. > > ...Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. > > > > You are complaining that you do not get the attention you desire. You > believe that anyone that is a good scientist would give you the > attention you desire and that anyone that doesn't give you that > attention is not a good scientist. > > Sorry, but you do not have the right to attention. > > You don't have the right to attention because you have not invested any > of the required effort to earn that attention. You have not even studied > elementary physics, and you have not bothered to learn basic arithmetic > skills. Instead, you have simply declared those things are not important > and declared that you are competent anyway. Such a person has not earned > attention. i am not asking for your or Tom's attention. I object to your and Tom's bullying attitude. > > > > >> > >> So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have > >> been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? > > Well? Have you learned all the alternative ideas that have been > explained in NPA proceedings? Yes or no? > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b7266a1-7aa2-4916-b5ef-36fcb90e9034@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363620 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:23:21 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > i am not asking for your or Tom's attention. Yes you are. > I object to your and Tom's bullying attitude. There are no bullies w/o cry babies. Which are you then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msruvl$lqf$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363620 |
On 9/9/2015 10:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/2015 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and >>>>> improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. >>>> >>>> Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means >>>> learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, >>>> unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is >>>> not a good scientist. >>> >>> Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist. >>> ...Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. >>> >> >> You are complaining that you do not get the attention you desire. You >> believe that anyone that is a good scientist would give you the >> attention you desire and that anyone that doesn't give you that >> attention is not a good scientist. >> >> Sorry, but you do not have the right to attention. >> >> You don't have the right to attention because you have not invested any >> of the required effort to earn that attention. You have not even studied >> elementary physics, and you have not bothered to learn basic arithmetic >> skills. Instead, you have simply declared those things are not important >> and declared that you are competent anyway. Such a person has not earned >> attention. > > i am not asking for your or Tom's attention. I object to your and Tom's bullying attitude. You are complaining about us dismissing your new idea. That is the same as not giving you any attention. >> >>> >>>> >>>> So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have >>>> been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? >> >> Well? Have you learned all the alternative ideas that have been >> explained in NPA proceedings? Yes or no? You see? You are no scientist, because you do not learn other people's ideas. >> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d84c0cf-00a2-4e9d-84b9-78d62394e0e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363651 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 9:01:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2015 10:23 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/9/2015 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and > >>>>> improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means > >>>> learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, > >>>> unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is > >>>> not a good scientist. > >>> > >>> Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist. > >>> ...Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. > >>> > >> > >> You are complaining that you do not get the attention you desire. You > >> believe that anyone that is a good scientist would give you the > >> attention you desire and that anyone that doesn't give you that > >> attention is not a good scientist. > >> > >> Sorry, but you do not have the right to attention. > >> > >> You don't have the right to attention because you have not invested any > >> of the required effort to earn that attention. You have not even studied > >> elementary physics, and you have not bothered to learn basic arithmetic > >> skills. Instead, you have simply declared those things are not important > >> and declared that you are competent anyway. Such a person has not earned > >> attention. > > > > i am not asking for your or Tom's attention. I object to your and Tom's bullying attitude. > > You are complaining about us dismissing your new idea. That is the same > as not giving you any attention. Hey idiot....In this thread We were not talking about my new idea. We were taklking that SR is just another name for LET. Tom and you tried to bully me to accept that SR is based on symmetry.....I said that SR symmstry is assumed. Why? because a clock moving with the accelerated particle runs at different rate than the lab clock and thus there is no symmetry exists between the lab frame and the accelerated particle frame. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have > >>>> been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? > >> > >> Well? Have you learned all the alternative ideas that have been > >> explained in NPA proceedings? Yes or no? > > You see? You are no scientist, because you do not learn other people's > ideas. > > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msv1nl$irk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363781 |
On 9/11/2015 11:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 9:01:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/2015 10:23 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2015 10:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:39:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/7/2015 8:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Tom bullying doesn't work. The problem is that you are unwilling to learn any new and >>>>>>> improved alternatives to SR. That's not characteristic of a good scientist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, you are under the impression that being a good scientist means >>>>>> learning all new ideas that come across the desk. According to you, >>>>>> unless a person learns all new ideas that come across the desk, he is >>>>>> not a good scientist. >>>>> >>>>> Bullying in combination with dismisssing new idea by hand waving is not a good scientist. >>>>> ...Tom and you exihibit these bad characteristics. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are complaining that you do not get the attention you desire. You >>>> believe that anyone that is a good scientist would give you the >>>> attention you desire and that anyone that doesn't give you that >>>> attention is not a good scientist. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but you do not have the right to attention. >>>> >>>> You don't have the right to attention because you have not invested any >>>> of the required effort to earn that attention. You have not even studied >>>> elementary physics, and you have not bothered to learn basic arithmetic >>>> skills. Instead, you have simply declared those things are not important >>>> and declared that you are competent anyway. Such a person has not earned >>>> attention. >>> >>> i am not asking for your or Tom's attention. I object to your and Tom's bullying attitude. >> >> You are complaining about us dismissing your new idea. That is the same >> as not giving you any attention. > > Hey idiot....In this thread We were not talking about my new idea. We were taklking that SR > is just another name for LET. Tom and you tried to bully me to accept that SR is based on > symmetry. What SR is based on is a matter of historical fact. As SR was developed, the conceptual foundations were described in the papers by the people that developed it. All of this is a matter of historical record. If you don't accept what's in the historical record, that's up to you. You might as well claim that World War II didn't happen and that anyone who says otherwise is bullying you. > ....I said that SR symmstry is assumed. Why? because a clock moving with the accelerated > particle runs at different rate than the lab clock and thus there is no symmetry exists > between the lab frame and the accelerated particle frame. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what Tom or I are saying when we say symmetry. We're talking about Lorentz symmetry, and Lorentz symmetry doesn't mean that everything is the same in two different frames. YOU think that symmetry means everything is the same in two different frames. If you don't know what meaning is attached to the words that Tom uses, then please don't make up something else. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So how is that you have not learned all the alternative ideas that have >>>>>> been explained in the NPA proceedings? Are you not a good scientist? >>>> >>>> Well? Have you learned all the alternative ideas that have been >>>> explained in NPA proceedings? Yes or no? >> >> You see? You are no scientist, because you do not learn other people's >> ideas. Still not a scientist, I see. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <133925bc-7949-4f66-a99f-634eec13714f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363783 |
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 1:07:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > What SR is based on is a matter of historical fact. Hey! claiming that is bullying! > If you don't accept what's in the historical record, that's up to you. There you go bullying him again! > You might as well claim that World War II didn't happen You want to fight with idiot ken now?? Isn't that bullying!? > ...we say symmetry. Using that word is bullying! Well, you get the idea ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web