Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <90b6350b-458b-4651-9749-e6ec1b43db4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482872 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 5:02:26 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > It the initial disturbance is sufficiently large then sound > will propagate through arbitrarily rarified media. Complete baloney. > AT least it will certainly propagate through the interplanetary and > interstellar media. (Ref: "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth > Wynn-Williams. Sure, we see evidence of shock waves. That book doesn't support your thesis, Keith. Everyone knows there's stuff in interstellar space, but only loons claim the stuff is a medium light. > Don't contradict me 'till you read it Sylvia. > Well worth reading if you really are interested in the > interstellar medium eh!) That doesn't change the fact that the particles are too far apart to be classified as a medium. Wynn-Williams makes no such claim that it does. > > As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when > > it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't > > propagate through it anyway. > > > > Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, > > unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the > > postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the > > propagation. > > I'm not saying that light IS sound, Sylvia. It isn't. > No analogy is perfect Sylvia, and there are certainly > many differences between the two, one of which is the > one you mention above. Another would be that light > travels very much faster than sound, but what light > and sound have in common is that they propagate as > a wave which travels at a speed determined by the > properties of the medium and that speed is relative > to the medium. Pablum. Sure, it's relative to the medium, but definitely NOT c +/- v, as demonstrated by Fizeau-like experiments (e.g., Michelson's). > > Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that > > medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed > > regardless of how thin it is. > > True Sylvia. > > > As this discussion has already > > demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous > > as the medium itself. > > Read the book Sylvia. Sound does travel in interstellar > space, and its speed there is of course relative to > the medium. Baloney. It's all explained by particle interaction. The speed of supernova ejecta is determined by force that ejected it. It gets slowed down by bumping into the interstellar medium, just like cars in a collision, not like soumd through a gas. > More pablum and vacuous assertions deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q1X5E.513000$Y32.113367@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #482879 |
"It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in
the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly
do exist." eh!
On 04/02/2019 12:49, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 5:02:26 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> If the initial disturbance is sufficiently large then sound
>> will propagate through arbitrarily rarified media.
>
> Complete baloney.
"It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in
the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly
do exist."
>> AT least it will certainly propagate through the interplanetary and
>> interstellar media. (Ref: "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth
>> Wynn-Williams.
>
> Sure, we see evidence of shock waves. That book doesn't support your
> thesis, Keith. Everyone knows there's stuff in interstellar space, but
> only loons claim the stuff is a medium light.
>
>> Don't contradict me 'till you read it Sylvia.
>> Well worth reading if you really are interested in the
>> interstellar medium eh!)
>
> That doesn't change the fact that the particles are too far apart to
> be classified as a medium. Wynn-Williams makes no such claim that it
> does.
>
>>> As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when
>>> it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't
>>> propagate through it anyway.
>>>
>>> Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because,
>>> unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the
>>> postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the
>>> propagation.
>>
>> I'm not saying that light IS sound, Sylvia. It isn't.
>> No analogy is perfect Sylvia, and there are certainly
>> many differences between the two, one of which is the
>> one you mention above. Another would be that light
>> travels very much faster than sound, but what light
>> and sound have in common is that they propagate as
>> a wave which travels at a speed determined by the
>> properties of the medium and that speed is relative
>> to the medium.
>
> Pablum. Sure, it's relative to the medium, but definitely NOT c +/- v,
> as demonstrated by Fizeau-like experiments (e.g., Michelson's).
>
>>> Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that
>>> medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed
>>> regardless of how thin it is.
>>
>> True Sylvia.
>>
>>> As this discussion has already
>>> demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous
>>> as the medium itself.
>>
>> Read the book Sylvia. Sound does travel in interstellar
>> space, and its speed there is of course relative to
>> the medium.
>
> Baloney. It's all explained by particle interaction. The speed of
> supernova ejecta is determined by force that ejected it. It gets
> slowed down by bumping into the interstellar medium, just like cars
> in a collision, not like soumd through a gas.
"It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in
the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly
do exist." Gareth Wynn-Williams in "The Fullness of Space"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q39elg$1nn8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482881 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > "It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in > the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly > do exist." eh! Not at frequencies higher than the cutoff imposed by the mean free path of particles in that interstellar medium. Shock waves are not high frequency signals. Sure seems to me you’re grasping at vague statements you can misconstrue for support. > > On 04/02/2019 12:49, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 5:02:26 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> If the initial disturbance is sufficiently large then sound >>> will propagate through arbitrarily rarified media. >> >> Complete baloney. > > "It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in > the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly > do exist." > >>> AT least it will certainly propagate through the interplanetary and >>> interstellar media. (Ref: "The Fullness of Space" by Gareth >>> Wynn-Williams. >> >> Sure, we see evidence of shock waves. That book doesn't support your >> thesis, Keith. Everyone knows there's stuff in interstellar space, but >> only loons claim the stuff is a medium light. >> >>> Don't contradict me 'till you read it Sylvia. >>> Well worth reading if you really are interested in the >>> interstellar medium eh!) >> >> That doesn't change the fact that the particles are too far apart to >> be classified as a medium. Wynn-Williams makes no such claim that it >> does. >> >>>> As a result the issue of the how fast the medium is moving when >>>> it is practically non-existent doesn't arise, because sound won't >>>> propagate through it anyway. >>>> >>>> Your claim that light is just like sound is manifestly false, because, >>>> unlike sound, light propagates just fine regardless of how thin the >>>> postulated medium. Indeed, the thinner the medium, the better the >>>> propagation. >>> >>> I'm not saying that light IS sound, Sylvia. It isn't. >>> No analogy is perfect Sylvia, and there are certainly >>> many differences between the two, one of which is the >>> one you mention above. Another would be that light >>> travels very much faster than sound, but what light >>> and sound have in common is that they propagate as >>> a wave which travels at a speed determined by the >>> properties of the medium and that speed is relative >>> to the medium. >> >> Pablum. Sure, it's relative to the medium, but definitely NOT c +/- v, >> as demonstrated by Fizeau-like experiments (e.g., Michelson's). >> >>>> Your theory requires that light propagate at speed relative to that >>>> medium. For that to work, the medium has to have a definite speed >>>> regardless of how thin it is. >>> >>> True Sylvia. >>> >>>> As this discussion has already >>>> demonstrated, the notion of a speed of a very thin medium is as tenuous >>>> as the medium itself. >>> >>> Read the book Sylvia. Sound does travel in interstellar >>> space, and its speed there is of course relative to >>> the medium. >> >> Baloney. It's all explained by particle interaction. The speed of >> supernova ejecta is determined by force that ejected it. It gets >> slowed down by bumping into the interstellar medium, just like cars >> in a collision, not like soumd through a gas. > > "It is true that sound waves travel very poorly in > the thin gas of interstellar space, but they certainly > do exist." Gareth Wynn-Williams in "The Fullness of Space" > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0472526-9ad1-4f2e-b917-72450cbee9f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482504 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 6:42:37 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > > them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > > time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > > out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. > > They would also both get the same number for the speed of sound No they would be quite different for sound, but nearly identical for light (in regions where the index of refraction is close to 1). Letting u denote the speed of sound in the inertial coordinates of the acoustic medium, the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving at speed v is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which of course is virtually u+v for ordinary acoustic waves. Hence the speeds are quite different in terms of the two inertial coordinate systems. In contrast, if u = c/n is the speed of a pulse of light in inertial coordinates of a medium with index of refraction n, the speed of the pulse in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving with speed v is (just as in the case of sound) (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which is just c/n times the factor (1+nv/c)/(1+v/(nc)). As an example, air has n = 1.0003 so the speed of a pulse of light is 0.9997c in the inertial coordinates of the air, but in terms of inertial coordinates moving at speed v = c/2 the speed of that pulse of light is 0.9999c, so approaching the source at half the speed of light makes almost no difference in terms of the speed. So, although sound and light obey exactly the same equation, the result is radically different because of the great difference in their speeds compared with c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VzB5E.713116$kk4.693513@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #482515 |
On 28/01/2019 08:13, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 6:42:37 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> Sylvia wrote: >>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the >>> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come >>> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. Keith wrote: >> They would also both get the same number for the speed of sound Henry wrote: > No they would be quite different for sound, but nearly identical for light So which of these "observers" do you think would get with the BIGGER number, do you think Henry ? Note in Sylvia question it is entirely clear, both "observers" are using their own rules and clocks to measure their own LOCAL VELOCITY OF LIGHT, and there is nothing to choose between Sylvia's "observers" eg! keith stein Henry Sophist continues: > Letting u denote the speed of sound in the inertial coordinates of the acoustic medium, the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving at speed v is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which of course is virtually u+v for ordinary acoustic waves. Hence the speeds are quite different in terms of the two inertial coordinate systems. > > In contrast, if u = c/n is the speed of a pulse of light in inertial coordinates of a medium with index of refraction n, the speed of the pulse in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving with speed v is (just as in the case of sound) (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which is just c/n times the factor (1+nv/c)/(1+v/(nc)). > > As an example, air has n = 1.0003 so the speed of a pulse of light is 0.9997c in the inertial coordinates of the air, but in terms of inertial coordinates moving at speed v = c/2 the speed of that pulse of light is 0.9999c, so approaching the source at half the speed of light makes almost no difference in terms of the speed. > > So, although sound and light obey exactly the same equation, the result is radically different because of the great difference in their speeds compared with c. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80445ca8-21fd-4274-8809-80389ed123f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482815 |
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> Sylvia wrote:
> >>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let
> >>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the
> >>> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come
> >>> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length.
> Keith wrote:
> >> They would also both get the same number for the speed of sound
> Henry wrote:
> > No they would be quite different for sound, but nearly identical for light
>
> So which of these "observers" do you think would get with the BIGGER
> number ?
Answered explicitly, for both sound and light, in the message you quoted.
Again, letting u denote the speed of sound in the inertial coordinates of the acoustic medium, the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving at speed v is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which of course is virtually u+v for ordinary acoustic waves. Hence the speeds are quite different in terms of the two inertial coordinate systems.
In contrast, if u = c/n is the speed of a pulse of light in inertial coordinates of a medium with index of refraction n, the speed of the pulse in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving with speed v is (just as in the case of sound) (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which is just c/n times the factor (1+nv/c)/(1+v/(nc)).
As an example, air has n = 1.0003 so the speed of a pulse of light is 0.9997c in the inertial coordinates of the air, but in terms of inertial coordinates moving at speed v = c/2 the speed of that pulse of light is 0.9999c, so approaching the source at half the speed of light makes almost no difference in terms of the speed.
So, although sound and light obey exactly the same equation, the result is radically different because of the great difference in their speeds compared with c.
> Note in Sylvia question it is entirely clear, both "observers"
> are using their own rules and clocks to measure their own
> LOCAL VELOCITY OF LIGHT, and there is nothing to choose
> between Sylvia's "observers"!
Sylvia was presumably referring to light in a region where the index of refraction is sufficiently close to 1. Of course, for any sufficiently uniform macroscopic material medium with an identifiable coherent state of motion (on some scale), and with index of refraction n, the speed of light is (by definition) c/n in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is at rest. And of course "Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates", all of which share the same time coordinates. All of this is perfectly consistent with special relativity.
As always, you're overlooking the fact that energy has inertia and, as a result, coordinate systems in which the dynamical equations of physics (in their homogeneous and isotropic form) hold good are not related by Galilean transformations, they are related by Lorentz transformations. You are free to express the speed of light (or sound or anything else) in terms of coordinate systems related by Galilean transformations, but the equations of physics don't take their usual homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of those coordinates. This is important, because the descriptions of clocks and humans and everything else obviously take their normal form in terms of coordinates in which the laws of physics take their normal form. That's why clocks and particles and everything else that has been tested has confirmed Lorentz invariance and conclusively falsified your beliefs.
>> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive
>> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell
The last time you posted that I provided the full quote, in which Maxwell explicitly refutes your beliefs. Again, he spoke about ordinary ("gross") matter, and then described the ethereal matter that comprised his luminiferous medium, an ether that he explicitly stated is *not* the air or any other ordinary material substance, and is not even dragged along very much (if at all) by ordinary matter. Hence his prediction of (v/c)^2 fringes for Michelson ("in air or vacuum"), where v is the orbital speed of the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2153d33d-f93f-4bda-b0e6-cc85a074cda3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482498 |
On Monday, 28 January 2019 01:29:45 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. > > The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will > arrive at the same number. Unless, of course, their rulers or clocks are constructed "inproperly", i.e. don't match the above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb86nfFcr03U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482513 |
On 28/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 28 January 2019 01:29:45 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the >> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come >> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >> >> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will >> arrive at the same number. > > Unless, of course, their rulers or clocks are constructed > "inproperly", i.e. don't match the above. > I don't see the point of that comment. If we use inaccurate equipment, we'll get inaccurate results. What of it? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <99294bb5-b2a7-47b7-a915-f3afb652c036@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482520 |
On Monday, 28 January 2019 12:18:11 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, 28 January 2019 01:29:45 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > >> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > >> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > >> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. > >> > >> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will > >> arrive at the same number. > > > > Unless, of course, their rulers or clocks are constructed > > "inproperly", i.e. don't match the above. > > > > I don't see the point of that comment. Not surprising. > If we use inaccurate equipment, > we'll get inaccurate results. What of it? Oppositely: if we don't get "proper" results - the equipment has to be broken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb8ebqFeg3oU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482522 |
On 28/01/2019 11:55 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 28 January 2019 12:18:11 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, 28 January 2019 01:29:45 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >>>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the >>>> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come >>>> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >>>> >>>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will >>>> arrive at the same number. >>> >>> Unless, of course, their rulers or clocks are constructed >>> "inproperly", i.e. don't match the above. >>> >> >> I don't see the point of that comment. > > Not surprising. > >> If we use inaccurate equipment, >> we'll get inaccurate results. What of it? > > Oppositely: if we don't get "proper" > results - the equipment has to be broken. > We do get proper results, so there's no problem. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24475c25-bbcb-4572-badf-cd29d3f9c06e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482523 |
On Monday, 28 January 2019 14:28:29 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/01/2019 11:55 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, 28 January 2019 12:18:11 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Monday, 28 January 2019 01:29:45 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > >>>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > >>>> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > >>>> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. > >>>> > >>>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will > >>>> arrive at the same number. > >>> > >>> Unless, of course, their rulers or clocks are constructed > >>> "inproperly", i.e. don't match the above. > >>> > >> > >> I don't see the point of that comment. > > > > Not surprising. > > > >> If we use inaccurate equipment, > >> we'll get inaccurate results. What of it? > > > > Oppositely: if we don't get "proper" > > results - the equipment has to be broken. > > > > We do get proper results, so there's no problem. Of course Your gurus do get proper results. They do know their job. Unfortunately - it 's true only in Your childish sandpit, where they have direct control of the equipment. When it is outside - well, the GPS clocks are obviously broken and their indications are obviously inproper. And You can do NOTHING about it. You can only wave arms and scream "they're BROKEN!!". And You do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59fe1c63-d2e2-4a0b-ae41-8887ff0ae74e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482498 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 7:29:45 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit > > and FAST in high Earth orbit. > > > > Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, > > but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there > > is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and gain > > 37 us/day in GPS orbit. > > > > "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein realized, > > both space and time must be flexible and relative to accommodate this." > > > > Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are invariable > > and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. > > > > If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > > so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > > way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > > be as daft as Einstein eh! > > > > keith stein > > The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this > discussion. Forget them. > > Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, just > make sure they tick at the same rate. > > Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their specific > lengths, just ensure that they are the same. But clocks in relative motion do not accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. That means that you can’t ensure that they tick at the same rate. It is true that the material length of a meter stick is the same in all frames of reference. > > Select two impartial observers. > > Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them for > a time, and then stop accelerating them. > > Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. The one-way speed of light measure such way will not give you constant c !!!! > > The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will > arrive at the same number. No, they don’t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d3c80d4-9e15-4b19-8998-d4109b364273@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, and stupidity of the masses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7cf1c030-18fd-47b2-a9d4-997ab32b81be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482535 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, and stupidity of the masses. Idiocies as usual. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <050d32ec-4388-485c-b695-d769f31f4e55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482552 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly > > how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to > > achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, > > and stupidity of the masses. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4 > Idiocies as usual. Right. Worship a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god is certainly idiocy. Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4dc92451-73e6-4bdf-af1d-0b272035305e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482633 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:41:03 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly > > > how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to > > > achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, > > > and stupidity of the masses. > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4 > > > Idiocies as usual. > > Right. Worship a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god is certainly idiocy. Fix your magic mantra problem first, it's impossible to talk rationally to an obsessive person. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29dcef67-5a09-4a31-8a6f-77b7c6507b20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482635 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:41:03 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly > > how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to > > achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, > > and stupidity of the masses. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4 > Fix your... There is nothing to be fixed. It's impossible to talk rationally to someone who worships a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god. You need to fix your magic mantra problem. Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v3ug$1csi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482636 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: >> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:41:03 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee >> wrote: > >> > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly how >> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to achieve >> > godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer pressure, >> > and stupidity of the masses. >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4 > >> Fix your... > > There is nothing to be fixed. It's impossible to talk rationally to > someone who worships a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god. You > need to fix your magic mantra problem. Not sure the young Einstein is the problem here. He looks rather like the victim. They had to have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v3re$1csi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482635 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:41:03 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:35 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: >> > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> >> > > The recent deification of a new political leader mirrors exactly >> > > how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to >> > > achieve godhood, through blatant lies from the media, peer >> > > pressure, >> > > and stupidity of the masses. >> > >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5JdRVwBw4 >> >> > Idiocies as usual. >> >> Right. Worship a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god is >> certainly idiocy. > > Fix your magic mantra problem first, it's impossible to talk rationally > to an obsessive person. come on, relativity is been wrong for decades now. Many proofs and indicators. For instance using the biggest GR equation in the world, you should be able to NUMERICALLY approximate the rise in meters of the water, at a location of your choice, due to the induction of the tidal "forces" by the moon. You can't do it, and there are no existent models published in the hood. No papers publicly available. Case closed. This much for your atomic clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | carleto4157990662@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d7ab34b7-5385-4f00-9cfa-ffa14db22684@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
Einstein's transnational velocity of space-time formed by the earth daily and yearly motions is not constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web