Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357565 > unrolled thread

When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-17 01:35 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 10:41 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 05:48 -0400
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 11:54 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 06:32 -0400
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 12:48 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:10 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:04 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:31 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:20 +0200
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:29 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:58 +0200
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:45 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 22:02 +0200
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:26 -0700
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:42 +0200
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:10 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:16 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:35 +0200
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 06:31 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:24 -0500
    When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:29 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 13:52 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:13 +0200
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:04 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:06 -0500
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-17 21:59 +0000
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 18:39 -0400
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:24 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 15:10 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 19:59 -0500
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:03 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:16 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:38 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-19 16:47 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:13 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:35 -0700
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-20 15:04 +0200
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:28 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-18 23:36 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:30 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:35 -0500
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:22 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:43 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:59 +0200
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:06 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:18 -0700
      Stephane Baune repeats the same imbecilities as before "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-18 21:34 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-19 11:01 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:53 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:20 -0700
      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:26 -0700
        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:49 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:15 -0700
          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-22 07:32 -0700
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 09:42 -0500
              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 05:58 -0700
                Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:36 -0500
                  Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:58 -0700
                    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:51 -0500
                      Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-07 08:20 -0700
                        Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:17 -0500
                          Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:20 -0500
                            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:23 -0500
                              Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:24 -0500
            Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:43 -0700
    Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#357758

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:usKdnU8j-_FjWTfInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...

|Stated differently: the predictions of LET do not depend
|in any way on which frame one labels "the ether frame".

As expected from a relativistic moron, you're denying your
previous post.
And of course, you're wrong, too.
Oppositely to your insane shit, LET predicts, that when clocks
unsnchronize, they will be corrected. 

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

#357861

W dniu sobota, 18 lipca 2015 23:28:31 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > No. The frame can't be assumed, but just resolved - measured experimentaly.
> 
> But in LET that is manifestly impossible. Its ether frame is completely 
> undetectable, by any possible means.
> 
> 	Stated differently: the predictions of LET do not depend
> 	in any way on which frame one labels "the ether frame".
> 
> 
> > Every SR observer assumes the aether frame to develop the SR math.
> 
> That is just plain wrong. You REALLY need to learn something about the subject 
> before attempting to write about it.

You do not must, because you can't learn any more - you are full of stupidity already!

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

#357757

On 7/18/15 7/18/15   1:44 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> It's not an assertion but a measured fact.
> There are many methods of the detection the ether rest frame.

No, it's an ASSERTION on your part. There are NO METHODS AT ALL to detect the 
ether frame of LET.

In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is not in any way related to the ether 
frame of LET (LET has no CMBR).

You could, I suppose, imagine some new theory in which the CMBR dipole=0 frame 
is also the aether frame. But that theory would not be LET. And there is no 
obvious reason for thinking that the dipole=0 frame is also the "aether frame" 
-- these are QUITE DIFFERENT concepts (after all, the CMBR propagates in the 
aether, and any frame would do equally well for its dipole to equal 0).

	And if this new theory is the same as LET in all other respects,
	it is refuted before it is born. All gravitational experiments
	refute both LET (using ANY ether frame), and SR.


Tom Roberts

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

#357830

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/18/15, 1:44 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> > It's not an assertion but a measured fact.
> > There are many methods of the detection the ether rest frame.
> 
> No, it's an ASSERTION on your part. There are NO METHODS AT ALL to
> detect the ether frame of LET.

This is because the scientific communities are so fvcking ignorant of the mathematical differences between SR and LET.  According to the mathematics, only at high absolute speeds of the observers, SR and LET will finally diverge in predictions.  <shrug>

> In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is not in any way related to
> the ether frame of LET (LET has no CMBR).

Tom's ASSumption in denial of the absolute frame of reference has no backing from anything else.  It is all Tom's own ASSumption.  <shrug>

> You could, I suppose, imagine some new theory in which the CMBR dipole=0 frame 
> is also the aether frame. But that theory would not be LET. And there is no 
> obvious reason for thinking that the dipole=0 frame is also the "aether frame" 
> -- these are QUITE DIFFERENT concepts (after all, the CMBR propagates in the 
> aether, and any frame would do equally well for its dipole to equal 0).
> 
> 	And if this new theory is the same as LET in all other respects,
> 	it is refuted before it is born. All gravitational experiments
> 	refute both LET (using ANY ether frame), and SR.

Well, as any good experimental physicist would do, since the dipole zero frame of CMBR is hinting to be the absolute frame of reference, he would devise experiment to prove so or disprove.  That is provided he is good in mathematics able to understand what the differences between LET and SR are.  <shrug>

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

#357836

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:22:16 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> This is because the scientific communities are so fvcking ignorant 
> of the mathematical differences between SR and LET.  

True, and so are you. 

> According to the mathematics, only at high absolute speeds of the 
> observers, SR and LET will finally diverge in predictions. 

Nope. You see, you are completely ignorant of the similarities of LET and SR.
At all speeds, they predict the exact same thing. 


> > In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is not in any way related to
> > the ether frame of LET (LET has no CMBR).

Tom, that is correct (just to support you, and to argue that <shrung dude> is once again wrong). 

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

#357841

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:e0f511c5-9c21-43cd-a0fd-a1876926376d@googlegroups.com...

|Nope. You see, you are completely ignorant of the similarities of LET and 
SR.
|At all speeds, they predict the exact same thing.

No, they don't. LET predicts corrections of clocks on GPS.
Your insane shit forbids them.

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

#357916

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 5:35:15 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/18/15 7/18/15   1:44 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > It's not an assertion but a measured fact.
> > There are many methods of the detection the ether rest frame.
> 
> No, it's an ASSERTION on your part. There are NO METHODS AT ALL to detect the 
> ether frame of LET.

Ditto.....there is NO METHOD AT ALL to detect the inertial frame. It is assumed.

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

#357773

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
 
> All this relativistic revolution with time is hanged at this
> point: these morons assumed, that good clocks are
> unsynchronized, 

Nope, they never made such an assumption, and such assumptions are not even needed. 
 
> They are not stupid enough to construct
> and use their "good" clocks

They have constructed such clocks and do use them on a daily basis. You seem to be still living in the dark ages. Has fire been discovered yet where you are?

> Notice another thing: they defined time only for
> inertial frames, and there are no inertial frames
> in reality.

Yes there is inertial frames in reality. Even on earth, there are inertial frames. Recall that the implementation of an actual inertial frame requires applying its operational definition. This done, there ARE inertial frames (on earth) by construction. But you are too daft to know this and are a reality denier. That is why I have a few Porches/BM's/BEN, and you dont. 

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

#357780 — Stephane Baune repeats the same imbecilities as before

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 9:29:34 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> Note that 'time' (in physics, or SR) is officially defined only in inertial frames.

Not true, it is also defined in accelerated frames, you keep repeating the same mistake. 


> We have developed a model that predicts the values indicated on these (inertial) clocks in these inertial frames: SR.

YOU, have not developed anything. YOU, are just posturing.

 


 
> Note: In non inertial frames, there are no official definition of 'time' and each person is free to use whatever definition he wants.

Repeating the same imbecilities doesn't make them true.



> This is the case for the common 'UTC time', for the 'cosmological time' or for the 'Schwarzschild time' usw; just see the various metrics used in GR or in other fields!

You need to stop posturing, it makes you ridiculous. 

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

#357825

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/18/2015 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:42:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/18/2015 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 5:18:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/17/2015 4:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:58:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/17/2015 12:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> What does "always tick at their usual rate" mean? The LT says that a clock moving wrt
> >>>>>>> the observer is predicted to tick at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, that's not what the LT says. Where did you read that's what it says?
> >>>>>> Don't remember where you read it? That's because you made it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's what the LT says according to the LET. Go read a book....idiot.
> >>>>
> >>>> It most certainly does not. You should read Lorentz's papers on this
> >>>> subject. Lorentz had the idea of "time" and "local time", and any
> >>>> difference was due to motion relative to the aether, not with respect to
> >>>> an observer. In fact, Lorentz made a point of saying that the observer
> >>>> was not at rest with respect to the aether.
> >>>>
> >>>> So where did you read that this is what LET says? Don't remember where
> >>>> you read it? That's because you made it up.
> >>>
> >>> Idiot Lorentz's theory includes the existence of absolute time and his specific interval of local
> >>> time is a specific interval of absolute time.
> >>
> >> No, it's not, and that's not what Lorentz said, ever. It does you no
> >> good to make things up.
> >
> > Moron....LET means Lorentz's Ether Theory.
> 
> Yes, and Lorentz ether theory does not say what you say it means.

Moron so you don't know what LET says.
> 
> > So a clock second in the ether frame is a specific interval of absolute time.
> 
> That's not what Lorentz ether theory says.
> 
> > Every SR and LET observer makes the same claim....that their own clock second
> > represents a specific interval of absolute time.
> 
> Heck no, that's not what EITHER theory says.
> 
> > That's why the SR frame the LET frame and the ether frame have the same math.
> >>
> >>> The observer transforms the local interval of absolute time to the the corresponding clock reading on
> >>> a clock moving wrt him. For example: the observer's clock second is corresponded to 1/gamma second on
> >>> a moving clock.
> >>
> >> And that's not what Lorentz ether theory says either.
> >>
> >>> Gee you are stupid.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#357914

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/19/2015 1:01 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/18/2015 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:42:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/18/2015 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 5:18:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/17/2015 4:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:58:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/17/2015 12:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> What does "always tick at their usual rate" mean? The LT says that a clock moving wrt
> >>>>>>>>> the observer is predicted to tick at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, that's not what the LT says. Where did you read that's what it says?
> >>>>>>>> Don't remember where you read it? That's because you made it up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's what the LT says according to the LET. Go read a book....idiot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It most certainly does not. You should read Lorentz's papers on this
> >>>>>> subject. Lorentz had the idea of "time" and "local time", and any
> >>>>>> difference was due to motion relative to the aether, not with respect to
> >>>>>> an observer. In fact, Lorentz made a point of saying that the observer
> >>>>>> was not at rest with respect to the aether.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So where did you read that this is what LET says? Don't remember where
> >>>>>> you read it? That's because you made it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Idiot Lorentz's theory includes the existence of absolute time and his specific interval of local
> >>>>> time is a specific interval of absolute time.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, it's not, and that's not what Lorentz said, ever. It does you no
> >>>> good to make things up.
> >>>
> >>> Moron....LET means Lorentz's Ether Theory.
> >>
> >> Yes, and Lorentz ether theory does not say what you say it means.
> >
> > Moron so you don't know what LET says.
> 
> Oh, but I do. It's written about in books.

You don't know how tp read.

> 
> You could start with Pais' book, Subtle is the Lord. It has a lovely 
> section on Lorentz ether theory.
> 
> >>
> >>> So a clock second in the ether frame is a specific interval of absolute time.
> >>
> >> That's not what Lorentz ether theory says.
> >>
> >>> Every SR and LET observer makes the same claim....that their own clock second
> >>> represents a specific interval of absolute time.
> >>
> >> Heck no, that's not what EITHER theory says.
> >>
> >>> That's why the SR frame the LET frame and the ether frame have the same math.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The observer transforms the local interval of absolute time to the the corresponding clock reading on
> >>>>> a clock moving wrt him. For example: the observer's clock second is corresponded to 1/gamma second on
> >>>>> a moving clock.
> >>>>
> >>>> And that's not what Lorentz ether theory says either.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Gee you are stupid.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#357859

W dniu sobota, 18 lipca 2015 22:04:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> > There are many methods of the detection the ether rest frame.
> 
> More ASSertion, no evidence.

It's just only evidence, because measured many times,
thus it's a scientific fact of the highest possible proof -
the experimental crucius... in the ideal state!

And the SR algebraic model is like an fictitious idealised pussy,
but with one little defect: it's a male kind of a pussy...
understandable for you?
 
> Irrelevant, as the sun is NOT moving in the ecliptic plain.
> More false ASSertion.

I don't use any your ASS...ertion, great imbecile.
It's good for pusses - the male type like you... hehe!

The CMB dipole is a simple effect of the intensive
radiation from the M87 galaxy region...
there are more matter/sources, simply...
are you also a blind astroidiot... or maybe in general - yes?

Of course. The stupidity is always very general.

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

#357860

W dniu sobota, 18 lipca 2015 22:07:07 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:

> No every SR observer assumes the inertial frame to develop the Sr math. It turns out that an inertial frame is just a location in the ether. that's why SR and LET have hte same math.

Nonsense...
the LET is a stricte classical math - there is none of the curved spaces ideology, nor time transforms, because the classics know what is a time,
and therefore it's treated is this way: t = inv!

c = inv, is a stupid trick - a naive replacement of:
t = inv by postulated - convention, and a belif: c = inv...
which still changes nothing in fact btw!

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

#357913

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 6:26:11 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 18 lipca 2015 22:07:07 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> 
> > No every SR observer assumes the inertial frame to develop the Sr math. It turns out that an inertial frame is just a location in the ether. that's why SR and LET have hte same math.
> 
> Nonsense...

The nonsense is on your poor understanding of LET. 

> the LET is a stricte classical math - there is none of the curved spaces ideology, nor time transforms, because the classics know what is a time,
> and therefore it's treated is this way: t = inv!

In LET or SR there is no curved space.
In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
In SR there is no absolute time and thus time is flexible and time is what the clock reads.
> 
> c = inv, is a stupid trick - a naive replacement of:
> t = inv by postulated - convention, and a belif: c = inv...
> which still changes nothing in fact btw!

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

#358136

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 1:19:37 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:19:33 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The shit that everyone else reads, the bible of SR, is fatally
> > self-contradictory.  It is no wonder we have such a bunch of
> > relativistic morons defending their religion and worshipping their
> > god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.  <shrug>
> 
> Not even wrong:

What Koobee Wublee has said above reflects what the self-styled physicists are doing today.  <shrug>

> 1. What everyone else reads is called "physics textbooks". We already know
> you don't read them.

How do you figure so?  For the record, Koobee Wublee has read and understood them.  That is why Koobee Wublee is able to point out self-contradictions about them in the first place.  <shrug>

> > The proper way to find out what SR says is to study the Lorentz
> > transform and not to glue on your nose to the anuses of the priests
> > spreading the nonsense of SR.
> 
> The proper way to learn relativity is to study it.

That is exactly what Koobee Wublee has said.  So, what the problem of Jan the relativistic moron?  <shrug>

> Goes for all knowledge.

Yes, Koobee Wublee concurs.  <shrug>

> Calling things you don't like names and pretending they are wrong will get
> you absolutely nowhere.

That is correct.  Calling Koobee Wublee idiot, bully, and not even wrong won't get the Einstein dingleberries anywhere.  <shrug>

> To be a scientist you must be intellectually honest, as simple as that.

That is true on paper, but in reality, all you have to do is to sing the party anthem.  <shrug>

> > Get a fvcking clue for a change.  <shrug>
> 
> Stop yelling nonsense. It won't change reality.

Does the truth really hurt that much to Jan the relativistic moron?  <shrug> 

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

#358181

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said?
> >>>>
> >>>> You cannot understand something you have not read.
> >>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read.
> >>>
> >>> That's what you do all the time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference.
> >
> > Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments.
> >
> 
> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what 
> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily 
> available to ANYONE and read them.

ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any calculations for your experiment.

> 
> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library 
> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So 
> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are 
> obligated to provide.
> 
> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims 
> about things that you've never even read.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#358185

On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read.
>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what you do all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference.
>>>
>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments.
>>>
>>
>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what
>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily
>> available to ANYONE and read them.
>
> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any
> calculations for your experiment.

Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed.

If you want to deny the existence of materials that are readily 
available to ANYONE, and beg people to show them to you here, that's up 
to you. But you end up looking like a whining child and it's obvious 
that you've read nothing.

>
>>
>> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library
>> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So
>> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are
>> obligated to provide.
>>
>> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims
>> about things that you've never even read.

See? You've made yourself look like an idiot by doing this.

>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#358368

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read.
> >>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's what you do all the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what
> >>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily
> >>>> available to ANYONE and read them.
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any
> >>> calculations for your experiment.
> >>
> >> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed.
> >
> > There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and
> > you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements.
> 
> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to 
> ANYONE, 

Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations.

and if you want to know how to do those calculations then you 
> should go find any of those readily available resources. For IRT 
> calculations, there is no resource other than you. So what is expected 
> of you, as a new theory proposer, is that you go find the readily 
> available resources to learn about SR ... AND .... you are the source of 
> the calculations of IRT.
> 
> This is the burden of anybody who wants to propose a new theory.
> 
> >>
> >> If you want to deny the existence of materials that are readily
> >> available to ANYONE, and beg people to show them to you here, that's up
> >> to you. But you end up looking like a whining child and it's obvious
> >> that you've read nothing.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library
> >>>> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So
> >>>> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are
> >>>> obligated to provide.
> >>>>
> >>>> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims
> >>>> about things that you've never even read.
> >>
> >> See? You've made yourself look like an idiot by doing this.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#358373

On 7/23/2015 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read.
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what you do all the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what
>>>>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily
>>>>>> available to ANYONE and read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any
>>>>> calculations for your experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed.
>>>
>>> There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and
>>> you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements.
>>
>> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to
>> ANYONE,
>
> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations.

It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily 
available resources. I didn't make it up. I pulled it from those 
resources you should look up.

>
> and if you want to know how to do those calculations then you
>> should go find any of those readily available resources. For IRT
>> calculations, there is no resource other than you. So what is expected
>> of you, as a new theory proposer, is that you go find the readily
>> available resources to learn about SR ... AND .... you are the source of
>> the calculations of IRT.
>>
>> This is the burden of anybody who wants to propose a new theory.

You don't want to accept this burden?

>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to deny the existence of materials that are readily
>>>> available to ANYONE, and beg people to show them to you here, that's up
>>>> to you. But you end up looking like a whining child and it's obvious
>>>> that you've read nothing.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library
>>>>>> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So
>>>>>> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are
>>>>>> obligated to provide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims
>>>>>> about things that you've never even read.
>>>>
>>>> See? You've made yourself look like an idiot by doing this.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#358480

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/23/2015 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read.
> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That's what you do all the time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what
> >>>>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily
> >>>>>> available to ANYONE and read them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any
> >>>>> calculations for your experiment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed.
> >>>
> >>> There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and
> >>> you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements.
> >>
> >> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to
> >> ANYONE,
> >
> > Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations.
> 
> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily 
> available resources. 

So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data (answer)?? 

I didn't make it up. I pulled it from those 
> resources you should look up.
> 
> >
> > and if you want to know how to do those calculations then you
> >> should go find any of those readily available resources. For IRT
> >> calculations, there is no resource other than you. So what is expected
> >> of you, as a new theory proposer, is that you go find the readily
> >> available resources to learn about SR ... AND .... you are the source of
> >> the calculations of IRT.
> >>
> >> This is the burden of anybody who wants to propose a new theory.
> 
> You don't want to accept this burden?
> 
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to deny the existence of materials that are readily
> >>>> available to ANYONE, and beg people to show them to you here, that's up
> >>>> to you. But you end up looking like a whining child and it's obvious
> >>>> that you've read nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library
> >>>>>> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So
> >>>>>> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are
> >>>>>> obligated to provide.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims
> >>>>>> about things that you've never even read.
> >>>>
> >>>> See? You've made yourself look like an idiot by doing this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web