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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#370003 — Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' 

> > The aether that Einstein's theory requires?

Yes.
 
> Nonsense.  Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special 
> (theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about 
> electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether.  It even says so *on the 
> first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later 
> translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”):
> 
> | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> | 
> | By A. Einstein
> | June 30, 1905
> | 
> | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the 
> | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do 
> | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the 
> | reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The 
> | observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the 
> | conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp 
> | distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of 
> | these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the 
> | conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an 
> | electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the 
> | places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is 
> | stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the 
> | neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an 
> | electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, 
> | but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases 
> | discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those 
> | produced by the electric forces in the former case.
> | 
> | 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 We will raise 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 
> | “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also 
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with 
> | the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on 
> | Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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.

Nice speech of an amateur...
Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
 
> See:
> 
> <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
> <http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf>
> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)>
> <http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/materials/special_theory_of_relativity.pdf>
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
> 
> And in general:
> 
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>

Indeed, nice references for the mainstrem pseudoscience...
but I can't see there the geocentric great ideas - you should include this!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#370018

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' 
> >
> > Nonsense.  Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special 
> > (theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about 
> > electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether.  It even says so *on the 
> > first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later 
> > translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”):
> > 
> > | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> > | 
> > | By A. Einstein
> > | June 30, 1905
> > | 
> > | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the 
> > | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do 
> > | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the 
> > | reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The 
> > | observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the 
> > | conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp 
> > | distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of 
> > | these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the 
> > | conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an 
> > | electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the 
> > | places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is 
> > | stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the 
> > | neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an 
> > | electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, 
> > | but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases 
> > | discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those 
> > | produced by the electric forces in the former case.
> > | 
> > | 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 We will raise 
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 
> > | “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also 
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with 
> > | the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
> >                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the 
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple 
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on 
> > | Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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.
> 
> Nice speech of an amateur...
> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!

You prove yourself to be an uneducated troll and an idiot.

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

#370029

W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 20:54:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' 
> > >
> > > Nonsense.  Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special 
> > > (theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about 
> > > electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether.  It even says so *on the 
> > > first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later 
> > > translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”):
> > > 
> > > | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
> > > | 
> > > | By A. Einstein
> > > | June 30, 1905
> > > | 
> > > | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the 
> > > | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do 
> > > | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the 
> > > | reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The 
> > > | observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the 
> > > | conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp 
> > > | distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of 
> > > | these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the 
> > > | conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an 
> > > | electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the 
> > > | places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is 
> > > | stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the 
> > > | neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an 
> > > | electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, 
> > > | but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases 
> > > | discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those 
> > > | produced by the electric forces in the former case.
> > > | 
> > > | 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 We will raise 
> > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > | this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 
> > > | “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also 
> > >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > | introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with 
> > > | the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
> > >                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the 
> > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > | emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple 
> > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > | and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on 
> > > | Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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.
> > 
> > Nice speech of an amateur...
> > Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> 
> You prove yourself to be an uneducated troll and an idiot.

You prove much more, and long ago, babe.
Go to some basics school first, instead improvising -
like the famous imbecilus Einstein and many others such promitives.

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

#370054

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:12:56 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> You prove much more, and long ago, babe.
> Go to some basics school first, instead improvising -
> like the famous imbecilus Einstein and many others such promitives.

Yep, definitely a stupid troll.

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

#370138

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:


> 
> Nice speech of an amateur...
> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!

...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...

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

#370163

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
> > 
> > Nice speech of an amateur...
> > Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> 
> ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...

Like you, for example.

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

#370319

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
>> Nice speech of an amateur...
>> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> 
> ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...

That is true, for he has attracted you.  You who claim something that 
Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain the 
observations: an (a)ether medium.  You have no clue what you are talking 
about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place.  Go away.


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

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#370320

W dniu wtorek, 17 listopada 2015 21:51:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
> >> Nice speech of an amateur...
> >> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> > 
> > ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
> 
> That is true, for he has attracted you.  You who claim something that 
> Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain the 
> observations: an (a)ether medium.  You have no clue what you are talking 
> about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place.  Go away.

Do not cite any such great-illuminated imbecilic claims... unless you do not have any brain, babe.

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

#370355

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 1:57:51 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> Do not cite any such great-illuminated imbecilic claims... unless you do
> not have any brain, babe.

You certainly don't USE yours.

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

#370383

W dniu środa, 18 listopada 2015 04:37:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 1:57:51 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > Do not cite any such great-illuminated imbecilic claims... unless you do
> > not have any brain, babe.
> 
> You certainly don't USE yours.

I have the glue, which stick yours USE defintitely. :)

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

#370475

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:51:16 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
>>> Nice speech of an amateur...
>>> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
>> 
>> ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
> 
> That is true, for he has attracted you.  You who claim something that
> Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain
> the observations: an (a)ether medium.  You have no clue what you are
> talking about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place.  Go
> away.

Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light 
from differently moving sources. Words alone will not do it. There must 
be a physical reason.
SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever 
known.
 
> PointedEars

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

#370484

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:51:16 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nice speech of an amateur...
> > > > Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> > > 
> > > ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
> > 
> > That is true, for he has attracted you.  You who claim something that
> > Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain
> > the observations: an (a)ether medium.  You have no clue what you are
> > talking about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place.  Go
> > away.
> 
> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light 
> from differently moving sources.

Complete baloney, of course.  If an absolute aether existed, the SoL would
be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer.  In
fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.

> Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
> SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever 
> known.

So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas?  The
greatest deceiver is one Henry Wilson, pseudonym for Ralphie-boy.

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

#370486

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Complete baloney, of course.  If an absolute aether existed, the SoL
> would be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving
> observer.  In fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the
> moving source.

Why not?

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

#370487

Jack Monaco wrote:

> In fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the
>> moving source.

Are you just saying that the speed wrt something else would be the SoL + 
his own speed? I suspect they just kicked you out of the Relativity club. 
Hahaha

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

#370571

On 21/11/15 07:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
 > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
 >
 >>
 >> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
 >> from differently moving sources.
 >
 > Complete baloney, of course.  If an absolute aether existed, the SoL 
would
 > be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer.  In
 > fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.

Poor little gary. Doesn't even know what source independence means. I 
will try to explain
It means that if two light signals are emitted in the same direction 
from differently moving sources, they will retain the same spatial 
relationship until their demise. No observers are involved.

 >> Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
 >> SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
 >> known.
 >
 > So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas?

-- 

According to LET, all observers will measure light speed to have a value 
of c. Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then 
worked backwards through the maths.

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

#370580

W dniu niedziela, 22 listopada 2015 01:04:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Henry Wilson 

> Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then 
> worked backwards through the maths.

Pseudomath only.

c't = ct' ...
ect.
idiotic improvisation,
but good for the PHd's cretnis like 137.

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

#370587

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:04:09 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On 21/11/15 07:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> > > from differently moving sources.
> >
> > Complete baloney, of course.  If an absolute aether existed, the SoL
> > would
> > be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer.  In
> > fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.
> 
> Poor little gary. Doesn't even know what source independence means.

YOU were the fool talking about source independence, dishonest one.  I
was pointing out that P2 also requires observer independence, which is
definitely NOT a property of an absolute aether, you sophist liar.

> [Idiotic moronic bullshit deleted.]
> 
> > > Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
> > > SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
> > > known.
> >
> > So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> -- 
> 
> According to LET, all observers will measure light speed to have a value 
> of c. Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then 
> worked backwards through the maths.

You are a simpleton AND a liar.  LET requires an aether which physically
squeezes objects in the direction of motion through said medium, SR does
not.  Only an abysmal fool would try to conflate the two.

BTW, I dumped your pathetic email in the trash where it belongs.  And YOU
belong in alsor's delusional institution.

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

#370590

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

>> Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

  I Think its much more of That
You can multiply By 10 time


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWUVGyAAoJEMxllEuAWAmCccwH/1FtK6w9qMOg4piwRsq432zM
DlcZIVt2QyposLIpByDqhDEJfTkklPNpCC9fWAlBIxoaEwYhq6Mw4uBGItFwvJ5M
QTZYnPhCVESg6FQuJGWJowmIwHZrmMHRNuZMgt7FXZZuzTQQ8Ay0E9TtaXhnGQNF
HepGJIX7kDxziddnqW16Xb7PMR2fLhmhjD/Ln55Q+WVa4iFpVOysgoi1Byp2xpY9
gaUxkitiXCW3nvq1DSaz57m9j3woK8Q88kA/SvrYYGJsMmI9mVEwvWz1KDNoID1w
YuJ3CpsCMsRQCUpaiQI5dbbM4zS+pbB8us8ab2O3SJIuGmpUG3Fn/YIRjFDPnIY=
=yWCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#370605

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”?


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]

#370719

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. 

> PointedEars

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web