Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613792 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-03 12:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:05 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:26 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:50 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 17:55 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 23:04 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 18:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:54 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 09:06 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 12:58 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 14:21 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:20 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:27 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 09:25 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:28 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:52 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:06 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:19 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:47 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:38 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:46 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:17 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:22 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 10:52 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 13:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 12:07 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 12:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 17:49 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:12 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:20 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:38 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:55 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 04:24 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:11 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 13:22 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:56 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:59 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 14:25 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 00:33 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 21:42 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Barry Schenck <ccsc@ebrrccrh.bc> - 2023-07-02 12:30 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 14:39 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:53 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:07 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:03 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:48 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:51 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:53 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:04 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:05 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:52 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:30 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:29 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-03 13:31 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-05 08:31 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Stoney Karkampasis <ttas@opiariam.ka> - 2023-07-05 18:00 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:10 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:11 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:48 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 03:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:55 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 04:26 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:12 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:13 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:24 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Hassell Chrysanthopoulos <rhss@lypnahhu.yh> - 2023-07-03 09:38 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:28 -0400
Re: How do you tell who Selvin Pappayiorgas <aasi@igesepap.on> - 2023-07-03 19:50 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's Barney Papadelias <bldb@yayaasnr.ia> - 2023-07-03 19:28 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 22:26 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:02 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:27 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:34 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:23 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-02 12:28 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 09:32 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 08:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:51 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:23 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:21 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:28 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:47 -0700
Off the Rails (was Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 17:01 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:47 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 21:01 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 19:06 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 21:09 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:27 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700 |
| Subject | How do you tell who's telling the truth? |
| Message-ID | <0a865ed3-cd27-417b-a101-d3e45959cb32n@googlegroups.com> |
The ones trying to silence the others are lying
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cef4fb90-0d2b-4a65-b713-1476b9d0a058n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613792 |
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > The ones trying to silence the others are lying It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccdfcdfa-6766-40f3-9bea-80c06c14988fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613936 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > The ones trying to silence the others are lying > It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which show it does not belong. And his alternative has no contradiction. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f449c5e1-2b5e-4b23-a78d-5f2aacbbcab0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613942 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > The ones trying to silence the others are lying > > It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > contradiction. > > Mitchell Raemsch How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af01d7c1-af2a-40c5-b78c-07164e8377cdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613962 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 2:26:42 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > Mitchell Raemsch > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. Learn some respect by NOT STROKING THE TROLLS. Report it as spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg3s3rF9j9jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613962 |
On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying >>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. >> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative >> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They >> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which >> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no >> contradiction. >> >> Mitchell Raemsch > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take your word that it is true?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oxHHQyB-krDOXR1AqSxxx02MxTQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #613986 |
Le 29/06/2023 à 00:55, whodat a écrit : > On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > your word that it is true? Ca se démontre parfaitement à partir de l'invariance de l'anisochronie spatiale. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58dd2bc9-a3bc-495a-9862-ccf7f823dfd1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613986 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying > >>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > >> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > >> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > >> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > >> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > >> contradiction. > >> > >> Mitchell Raemsch > > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > > is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > your word that it is true? Even relativity has additive velocity with its own transformation calculations for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 18:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg3vd3Fa0hsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613992 |
On 6/28/2023 6:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying >>>>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. >>>> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative >>>> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They >>>> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which >>>> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no >>>> contradiction. >>>> >>>> Mitchell Raemsch >>> How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity >>> is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. >> Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take >> your word that it is true? > Even relativity has additive velocity with its own transformation calculations for it. Cannot be supported as relevant additive velocity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17e6b2fa-1a1c-4fd6-8944-b1c4f3d7c692n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613996 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:52:07 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/28/2023 6:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying > >>>>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > >>>> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > >>>> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > >>>> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > >>>> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > >>>> contradiction. > >>>> > >>>> Mitchell Raemsch > >>> How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > >>> is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > >> Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > >> your word that it is true? > > > Even relativity has additive velocity with its own transformation calculations for it. > Cannot be supported as relevant additive velocity. That is what the transformation equations are. They are relativity's version of additive velocity. Only they negate added velocity (unnecessarily).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df3aae03-badb-456e-b527-7d113bd02f29n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613999 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:54:25 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:52:07 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > On 6/28/2023 6:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > >> On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>>>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying > > >>>>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > > >>>> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > > >>>> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > > >>>> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > > >>>> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > > >>>> contradiction. > > >>>> > > >>>> Mitchell Raemsch > > >>> How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > > >>> is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > > >> Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > > >> your word that it is true? > > > > > Even relativity has additive velocity with its own transformation calculations for it. > > Cannot be supported as relevant additive velocity. > That is what the transformation equations are. They are relativity's version of additive velocity. Only they negate added velocity (unnecessarily). Relativity functions as an ideology according to Peter Hayes in a peer-reviewed journal: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox." The way this manifests is as censorious treatment of opponents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg5v2jFj63tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614026 |
On 6/29/2023 11:06 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:54:25 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:52:07 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: <...> > Relativity functions as an ideology according to Peter Hayes in a peer-reviewed > journal: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox." Just another opinion. I note you fail to identify the "peer reviewed journal" and although I actually looked I couldn't find the article published in one worthy of that moniker. As I've written here before, show me something that is acceptable by mainstream physics. Stop with the mamby pamby assertions and get to work showing that your claims have legs. All you've done is whine and say that everything that's accepted today is a result of misinterpretation with political underpinnings. You have the same shot as anybody else. I am not the enemy of truth, but you have to demonstrate your claims. When "cold fusion" came out as a claim that was given serious review by mainstream physics. So far you haven't even made that sort of ripple. I've gotten tired of waiting for something, anything, from you that at least garners that sort of attention. The way this manifests is as censorious treatment of opponents. Indeed, why is it you do that? I asked for details that you ignored choosing instead ad homeinem attacks. Once that began rational discussion ended. How could you rationally expect anything else? And please stop with the jumping identities tactic. It only distracts for a short while and yields no advantage to such causes as you want to bring into the field.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <073fda84-466f-4407-9510-17451262662en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614037 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/29/2023 11:06 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:54:25 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:52:07 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > <...> > > Relativity functions as an ideology according to Peter Hayes in a peer-reviewed > > journal: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox." > Just another opinion. I note you fail to identify the "peer reviewed > journal" and although I actually looked I couldn't find the article > published in one worthy of that moniker. > > As I've written here before, show me something that is acceptable by > mainstream physics. Stop with the mamby pamby assertions and get to work > showing that your claims have legs. All you've done is whine and say > that everything that's accepted today is a result of misinterpretation > with political underpinnings. > > You have the same shot as anybody else. I am not the enemy of truth, but > you have to demonstrate your claims. When "cold fusion" came out as a > claim that was given serious review by mainstream physics. So far you > haven't even made that sort of ripple. I've gotten tired of waiting for > something, anything, from you that at least garners that sort of > attention. > The way this manifests is as censorious treatment of opponents. > Indeed, why is it you do that? I asked for details that you ignored > choosing instead ad homeinem attacks. Once that began rational > discussion ended. How could you rationally expect anything else? > > And please stop with the jumping identities tactic. It only distracts > for a short while and yields no advantage to such causes as you want > to bring into the field. I guess you're right, and it is not peer-reviewed. Peer review is a secret process of censoring. Those who are censoring are the ones lying. I am not concerned with what mainstream physics accepts since it is full of nonsense. You want to make demands as if you have been granted a debate. This is a discussion forum, not a debate. You don't qualify for that. Relativity does function as an ideology, as demonstrated by your censorious behavior. I'm not trying for attention, but the name "whodat" describes someone who is. I have virtually never heard anything of value from you which is why I haven't read hardly anything of yours. You're a waste of time. Ad hominem criticism is rational when dealing with scoundrels. You definitely have ceased rational discussion!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 14:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg63t6Fj63tU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614042 |
On 6/29/2023 1:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 10:58:47 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 6/29/2023 11:06 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:54:25 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:52:07 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> <...> >>> Relativity functions as an ideology according to Peter Hayes in a peer-reviewed >>> journal: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox." >> Just another opinion. I note you fail to identify the "peer reviewed >> journal" and although I actually looked I couldn't find the article >> published in one worthy of that moniker. >> >> As I've written here before, show me something that is acceptable by >> mainstream physics. Stop with the mamby pamby assertions and get to work >> showing that your claims have legs. All you've done is whine and say >> that everything that's accepted today is a result of misinterpretation >> with political underpinnings. >> >> You have the same shot as anybody else. I am not the enemy of truth, but >> you have to demonstrate your claims. When "cold fusion" came out as a >> claim that was given serious review by mainstream physics. So far you >> haven't even made that sort of ripple. I've gotten tired of waiting for >> something, anything, from you that at least garners that sort of >> attention. >> The way this manifests is as censorious treatment of opponents. >> Indeed, why is it you do that? I asked for details that you ignored >> choosing instead ad homeinem attacks. Once that began rational >> discussion ended. How could you rationally expect anything else? >> >> And please stop with the jumping identities tactic. It only distracts >> for a short while and yields no advantage to such causes as you want >> to bring into the field. > I guess you're right, and it is not peer-reviewed. Peer review is a secret process of censoring. Those who are censoring are the ones lying. I am not concerned with what mainstream physics accepts since it is full of nonsense. You want to make demands as if you have been granted a debate. This is a discussion forum, not a debate. You don't qualify for that. Relativity does function as an ideology, as demonstrated by your censorious behavior. I'm not trying for attention, but the name "whodat" describes someone who is. I have virtually never heard anything of value from you which is why I haven't read hardly anything of yours. You're a waste of time. Ad hominem criticism is rational when dealing with scoundrels. You definitely have ceased rational discussion! Big question, do you feel better for having vented? 2nd question, if this is a discussion group, why do you sound like you are angry with me? Discussions invariably include dissent. 3rd question, please point out any place where I have actually been censoring anything. I just don't see it. In an attempt to equalize footing, I am as entitled to my opinion stated above as you are to yours as is anybody who deigns to post here. Value judgments, as always, are the province of each reader. Not that it much maters, you did manage to mung some (one that I noticed) attributions in your quoted text above. If you find my postings irrational I urge you to stop reading anything I put out for discussion by others. I do not nymshift so that shouldn't present a problem. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a28b1f6a-36e9-4aeb-93f1-302b850ab8e1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613986 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying > >>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > >> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > >> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > >> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > >> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > >> contradiction. > >> > >> Mitchell Raemsch > > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > > is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > your word that it is true? Galileo pointed to phenomena in the cabin of a ship. They act as if the boat is still while the boat is in uniform linear motion. You can just make the calculations yourself. In the MMX it is the beam in the direction of the Earth's orbit that an ether wind would slow. The perpendicular beam would be slowed if light speed was independent of the source. That would give a fringe shift if the interferometer were sensitive enough since it's a smaller effect than the wind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1da84cba-447f-4767-a69e-85deaedeff3dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613986 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:55:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/28/2023 1:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying > >>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > >> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > >> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > >> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > >> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > >> contradiction. > >> > >> Mitchell Raemsch > > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity > > is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > Can you demonstrate "additive velocity" or are we just supposed to take > your word that it is true? The MMX was not accurate enough to detect that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <037812ff-1132-4e64-97de-ed868c225c3en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613962 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:26:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > The ones trying to silence the others are lying > > > It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > > Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > > motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > > want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > > show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > > contradiction. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. If the atom is affected by gravity why not light? How is one different from the other? They are both together if the atom absorbs the light... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfb8aac9-8c0a-4a2c-957d-6b050e1c84ccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614030 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 9:25:18 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:26:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > The ones trying to silence the others are lying > > > > It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. > > > Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative > > > motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They > > > want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which > > > show it does not belong. And his alternative has no > > > contradiction. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. > If the atom is affected by gravity why not light? > How is one different from the other? > They are both together if the atom absorbs the light... > > Mitchell Raemsch In a vacuum, light exists without the atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg627fFj63tU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614040 |
On 6/29/2023 1:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 9:25:18 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:26:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:39:07 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> The ones trying to silence the others are lying >>>>> It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. >>>> Even Einstein didn't need relativity. He considered an alternative >>>> motion theory. The world of science does not like it. They >>>> want to hold his memory to relativity that has contradictions of which >>>> show it does not belong. And his alternative has no >>>> contradiction. >>>> >>>> Mitchell Raemsch >>> How is your theory necessary to explain the MMX when ordinary additive velocity is perfectly sufficient? Do you think light is affected by gravity? I don't. >> If the atom is affected by gravity why not light? >> How is one different from the other? >> They are both together if the atom absorbs the light... >> >> Mitchell Raemsch > In a vacuum, light exists without the atom. There are specific reasons why we believe this, but in terms of demonstrating it as fact in situ are unavailable. Unless you terminate a pulse of light by having it interact with matter you cannot demonstrate its existence as it traverses space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abb3733e-6aff-415a-ad79-e7593dc57c5an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613936 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:05:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > The ones trying to silence the others are lying > It is the relativists who are trying to silence their opponents. No, it only seems that way to people who don't want to do honest work. One fact of life is that an ignoramus cannot distinguish between his own incompetence and that of his opponent. This is very characteristic. And if the person is also more arrogant than average, all bets are off. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web