Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376518 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 18:44 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:59 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 10:15 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 12:23 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 03:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 05:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 22:03 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-19 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:01 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 19:56 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:45 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:02 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:53 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 10:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:43 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:49 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 20:13 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:27 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-02-27 15:08 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:04 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kunz <gx@fp.cdfy.7h> - 2016-02-19 13:08 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-21 14:20 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-07 20:44 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:24 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 17:13 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:44 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:38 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 14:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-20 07:49 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 09:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:28 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:18 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:11 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 11:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-23 15:27 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-23 23:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:14 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:34 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:54 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 22:36 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:27 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 08:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 04:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 18:17 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:43 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 11:26 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 16:10 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 07:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 12:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 13:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:21 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:51 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 20:07 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:31 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-27 12:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 22:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-28 09:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:18 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 16:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:41 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 15:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 12:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 13:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 13:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 08:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 11:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 16:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 12:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 00:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:42 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:30 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:31 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:34 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:35 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 16:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-07 12:05 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 19:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:29 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 16:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 22:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:39 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 03:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 05:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 05:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 23:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:14 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-22 13:47 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-23 23:07 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 11:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Why isn't ether confirmed |
| Message-ID | <cc24e75c-e8b0-442c-b292-6bf64d8b6d4f@googlegroups.com> |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting ones, |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case in |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... Looks almost logical, doesn't it? But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality deniers!!!!!!" Why. Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against common sense managing these words in a sane people minds. A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from brainwashed fanatics.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dinvf2Fke0kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376518 |
On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its > |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no > |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming > |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming > |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting > ones, > |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general > |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case > in > |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... > > Looks almost logical, doesn't it? > But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether > is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality > deniers!!!!!!" > Why. > Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry > excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", > "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against > common sense managing these words in a sane people > minds. > > A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from > brainwashed fanatics. > What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the existence of] the ether? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 23:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <30af46ff-d85b-45c1-9654-58684c871a13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376522 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 08:44:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > > |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its > > |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no > > |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming > > |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming > > |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting > > ones, > > |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general > > |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case > > in > > |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... > > > > Looks almost logical, doesn't it? > > But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether > > is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality > > deniers!!!!!!" > > Why. > > Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry > > excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", > > "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against > > common sense managing these words in a sane people > > minds. > > > > A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from > > brainwashed fanatics. > > > > What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the > existence of] the ether? Me? The above is Your logic, not mine. And, according to it, whatever confirms SR, confirms Lorentz's ether too. Not just one ether. There are infinite versions of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing ether, and according to the logic above they are all experimentally confirmed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 09:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6ldcb98tv2e79jbkltofbpl6ai1lig9rc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #376524 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing >ether, and according to the logic above they are >all experimentally confirmed. Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. Now look at your ETHER. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 01:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08d03ae7-05c3-4049-a4e3-0575826eafe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376528 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions > >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing > >ether, and according to the logic above they are > >all experimentally confirmed. > > Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. > Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the first post of this thread, it's experimentally confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific Method, poor idiot? > comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. > The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. > > Now look at your ETHER. It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p6ndcbplnlvm74ce6csapbs9047q3b5prf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #376535 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:02:05 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >> >> >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions >> >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing >> >ether, and according to the logic above they are >> >all experimentally confirmed. >> >> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. >> Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it > >Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the >first post of this thread, it's experimentally >confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific >Method, poor idiot? > >> comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. >> The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. >> >> Now look at your ETHER. > >It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's. Experimentally confirmed? Where? Several other posters alredy asked that question. So I ask you again. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 01:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40e15c07-6628-430d-9dc3-34eb4ce57c36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376540 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 10:15:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:02:05 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions > >> >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing > >> >ether, and according to the logic above they are > >> >all experimentally confirmed. > >> > >> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. > >> Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it > > > >Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the > >first post of this thread, it's experimentally > >confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific > >Method, poor idiot? > > > >> comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. > >> The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. > >> > >> Now look at your ETHER. > > > >It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's. > > Experimentally confirmed? Where? > Several other posters alredy asked that question. > So I ask you again. And I answer again. According to the "logic" presented by your fellow idiot Tom above, whatever confirms Special Shit, confirms Lorentz's ether too. And not just one ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <omudcbhnf1mhc9efl7rbdcv2omau1jsln3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #376541 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:21:46 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 10:15:09 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:02:05 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >> >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: >> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions >> >> >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing >> >> >ether, and according to the logic above they are >> >> >all experimentally confirmed. >> >> >> >> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. >> >> Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it >> > >> >Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the >> >first post of this thread, it's experimentally >> >confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific >> >Method, poor idiot? >> > >> >> comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. >> >> The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. >> >> >> >> Now look at your ETHER. >> > >> >It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's. >> >> Experimentally confirmed? Where? >> Several other posters alredy asked that question. >> So I ask you again. > >And I answer again. According to the "logic" presented >by your fellow idiot Tom above, whatever confirms >Special Shit, confirms Lorentz's ether too. And >not just one ether. You just made the entry test for the PHYSICS VILLAGE IDIOT QUACKADEMY, you are a certified idiot now. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 03:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1587ed07-638f-49c3-a36c-24dccebeb370@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376547 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 12:23:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:21:46 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 10:15:09 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: > >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:02:05 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> > >> >W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: > >> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Not just one ether. There are infinite versions > >> >> >of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing > >> >> >ether, and according to the logic above they are > >> >> >all experimentally confirmed. > >> >> > >> >> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. > >> >> Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it > >> > > >> >Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the > >> >first post of this thread, it's experimentally > >> >confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific > >> >Method, poor idiot? > >> > > >> >> comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. > >> >> The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. > >> >> > >> >> Now look at your ETHER. > >> > > >> >It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's. > >> > >> Experimentally confirmed? Where? > >> Several other posters alredy asked that question. > >> So I ask you again. > > > >And I answer again. According to the "logic" presented > >by your fellow idiot Tom above, whatever confirms > >Special Shit, confirms Lorentz's ether too. And > >not just one ether. > > You just made the entry test for the > PHYSICS VILLAGE IDIOT QUACKADEMY, > you are a certified idiot now. Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you're able to do. As expected from fanatic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b493073b-1202-49ea-9f09-6b96dc9eb776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376548 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:37:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 12:23:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > > > > You just made the entry test for the > > PHYSICS VILLAGE IDIOT QUACKADEMY, > > you are a certified idiot now. > > Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you're able > to do. As expected from fanatic trash. mlwo raves and spits again :-)) He obviously is indeed the village idiot “the global village will have its village idiots, and they’ll have a global range.” -- Martin Rees
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 06:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35893aa3-74dd-44d1-8640-a7efffe94acb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376553 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 14:48:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:37:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 12:23:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > > > > > > You just made the entry test for the > > > PHYSICS VILLAGE IDIOT QUACKADEMY, > > > you are a certified idiot now. > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you're able > > to do. As expected from fanatic trash. > > mlwo raves and spits again :-)) He obviously is indeed the village idiot Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31362b8b-5272-4dcf-9631-9a2114693e1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376556 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:05:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 14:48:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:37:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 12:23:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał: > > > > > > > > You just made the entry test for the > > > > PHYSICS VILLAGE IDIOT QUACKADEMY, > > > > you are a certified idiot now. > > > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you're able > > > to do. As expected from fanatic trash. > > > > mlwo raves and spits again :-)) He obviously is indeed the village idiot > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. So when are you going to regain consciousness and stop your dream-induced delusional rantings?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 22:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diob4tFnc31U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376540 |
On 19/02/2016 8:15 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 01:02:05 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu pi?tek, 19 lutego 2016 09:42:46 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisa?: >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Not just one ether. There are infinite versions >>>> of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing >>>> ether, and according to the logic above they are >>>> all experimentally confirmed. >>> >>> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. >>> Nobody knows what it might be, why it is there and from whence it >> >> Unfortunately, according to logic quoted in the >> first post of this thread, it's experimentally >> confirmed. Don't you believe in the Holy Scientific >> Method, poor idiot? >> >>> comes. It is omnipresent, penetrates everything but cannot be grasped. >>> The HOLY SPIRIT is the most stupid invention of any religion ever. >>> >>> Now look at your ETHER. >> >> It's not my ether. It's Lorentz's. > > Experimentally confirmed? Where? > Several other posters alredy asked that question. > So I ask you again. > I think he's referring to the fact that both Lorentz ether theory and special relativity yield the same model - the Lorentz transformation. To his mind, a verification of the model is a verification of everything that lead up to it, and therefore any experiment that verifies the model also verifies the existence of the ether. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na7pur$otu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376528 |
Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>Not just one ether. There are infinite versions of Lorentz's ether >>theory, differently placing ether, and according to the logic above they >>are all experimentally confirmed. > > Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches. No, that must be Spacetime. https://twitter.com/bm21_grad/status/700647443382165504
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 20:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5WOxy.6754$eQ.6159@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #376569 |
On 02/19/2016 02:20 PM, Stzepan Zdrobněliny wrote:
> Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:59:39 -0800 (PST), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not just one ether. There are infinite versions of Lorentz's ether
>>> theory, differently placing ether, and according to the logic above they
>>> are all experimentally confirmed.
>>
>> Ether in physics is equivalent the HOLY SPIRIT of the Xtian churches.
>
> No, that must be Spacetime.
> https://twitter.com/bm21_grad/status/700647443382165504
>
How many angels can stand on a square meter-sec of space-time?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dio3m1Flfp9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376524 |
On 19/02/2016 6:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 08:44:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>> >>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its >>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no >>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming >>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming >>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting >>> ones, >>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general >>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case >>> in >>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... >>> >>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it? >>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether >>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality >>> deniers!!!!!!" >>> Why. >>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry >>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", >>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against >>> common sense managing these words in a sane people >>> minds. >>> >>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from >>> brainwashed fanatics. >>> >> >> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the >> existence of] the ether? > > Me? The above is Your logic, not mine. > And, according to it, whatever confirms SR, > confirms Lorentz's ether too. > Not just one ether. There are infinite versions > of Lorentz's ether theory, differently placing > ether, and according to the logic above they are > all experimentally confirmed. > Physics is about creating theoretical models. Lorentz's ideas about the ether lead him to what we now call the Lorentz transformation. However, this transformation has nothing at all to say about any underlying ether. Einstein showed that we can reach the same theoretical model by requiring that all inertial frames have the same physical laws. The experiments verify this theoretical model. They don't go beyond that - that's the real of philosophy. However, Einstein then showed that one can refine the model to include the effects of gravity, and experiments verify the refined model. I doubt Lorentz could have reached this latter point by expanding on ether theory. In summary, your objections seem based on a flawed notion of what physics is. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 01:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5480ad5a-d988-4d48-9411-f6ba6a80eb4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376532 |
W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 09:56:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 19/02/2016 6:59 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 08:44:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>> > >>> > >>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its > >>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no > >>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming > >>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming > >>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting > >>> ones, > >>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general > >>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case > >>> in > >>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... > >>> > >>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it? > >>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether > >>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality > >>> deniers!!!!!!" > >>> Why. > >>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry > >>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", > >>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against > >>> common sense managing these words in a sane people > >>> minds. > >>> > >>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from > >>> brainwashed fanatics. > >>> > Physics is about creating theoretical models. Don't talk to me about models. I've forgot about them much more, than You ever knew. And don't change the subject. > In summary, your objections seem based on a flawed notion of what > physics is. I have no doubts, that quoted above Tom's notion of what physics is - is flawed. I'm glad we agree on that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ebaef4d-2d75-472a-a470-5bf9b42b972f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376522 |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/16/2016 10:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Space-time is just another name for a medium. Physicist reject > > the idea of a medium > > Ken, physicists do not reject spacetime. So if you want to call it > > a medium, then you won't find physicists rejecting a medium, as > > long as it has the same traits as spacetime. Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ Physicists ought to reject spacetime. It is the only logical thing to do for science. <shrug> Please understand this. The concept of the Aether deals with tangible reality, but spacetime deals with abstract spiritual enlightenment aka wherever heaven is aka whatever that can keep the religion of relativity proliferating. <shrug> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:44:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the > existence of] the ether? The null results of the MMX, of course. These null results gave rise to the Voigt, Larmor's, and Lorentz's infinite other transforms. All these transforms say the absolute frame of reference must exist. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 03:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UCAxy.10292$Fg2.3501@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #376526 |
On 02/19/2016 03:11 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 10:59 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>> Space-time is just another name for a medium. Physicist reject
>>> the idea of a medium
>>
>> Ken, physicists do not reject spacetime. So if you want to call it
>>> a medium, then you won't find physicists rejecting a medium, as
>>> long as it has the same traits as spacetime.
>
> Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below.
> <shrug>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
>
> Physicists ought to reject spacetime. It is the only logical thing
> to do for science. <shrug>
>
> Please understand this. The concept of the Aether deals with
> tangible reality, but spacetime deals with abstract spiritual
> enlightenment aka wherever heaven is aka whatever that can keep the
> religion of relativity proliferating. <shrug>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:44:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the
>> existence of] the ether?
>
> The null results of the MMX, of course. These null results gave rise
> to the Voigt, Larmor's, and Lorentz's infinite other transforms. All
> these transforms say the absolute frame of reference must exist.
> <shrug>
And thus aether provides not only the absolute reference for space (to
itself, not to some mythical absolute coordinate system, but also proved
the well measured properties of "empty" space.
Obviously all mathematical entities like points, lines, infinity,
space-time etc. are all total fantasy with no reality whatsoever.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naf7to$m5e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376529 |
On 2/19/2016 2:45 AM, benj wrote: > Obviously all mathematical entities like points, lines, infinity, > space-time etc. are all total fantasy with no reality whatsoever. Let's explore this a little bit, Ben. According to you, a circle is not real, nor does it correspond to anything real. So there is a distinction between a circular and a circular thing like a wheel, where presumably the circular wheel is a real thing. But maybe what you're saying is that a wheel cannot be called a circular thing at all. Maybe because it's not PERFECTLY circular but has imperfections no matter how slight. Is this what you're saying? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web