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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356907 > unrolled thread

Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled.

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 14:52 -0700
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-07-13 08:14 +0200
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-13 02:30 -0400
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-14 16:59 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 10:31 -0500
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-15 06:55 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-14 20:58 -0400
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. xxein1@att.net - 2015-07-14 18:36 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 23:14 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 00:01 -0700
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-14 19:46 +0000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:23 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:39 +0000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:19 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:49 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 17:19 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:13 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:20 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:26 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 18:38 +0200
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:30 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:36 +0200
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:40 -0700
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:01 +0200
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:20 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:12 +0200
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:46 -0700
                                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 09:15 +0200
                                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 14:50 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:38 +0000
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:56 -0400
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:20 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 16:23 -0400
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 20:33 +0000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:49 -0700
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 21:01 +0000
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 21:21 +0000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:06 +0200
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:13 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:23 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:15 +0200
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:33 -0700
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:53 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:57 -0700
                                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:42 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:22 -0500
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-15 06:47 +1000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. HW <hw@...> - 2015-07-15 07:16 +1000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-16 20:26 +1000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:20 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:34 +0000
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 18:36 +0200
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:59 -0400
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:06 +0200
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:20 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:22 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:28 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:40 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:55 -0400
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:35 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:33 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:56 +0200
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:03 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-18 09:23 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-19 08:04 +1000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. xxein1@att.net - 2015-07-18 20:17 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-19 20:56 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-19 22:46 +0000
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-22 05:43 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-23 08:43 +1000
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-23 08:08 -0500
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:46 -0500
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:54 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:50 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-23 17:20 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:49 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:02 -0500
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-25 12:00 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:35 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:46 -0500
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-25 11:58 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:34 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-26 02:10 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-24 14:15 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:44 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:19 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 17:45 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 06:52 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:37 -0500
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 07:56 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 16:10 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-28 10:40 +0200
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 06:40 +1000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:35 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-29 02:35 +0000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-25 10:47 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:19 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-25 23:48 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-26 12:17 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-30 13:16 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 22:16 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-02 11:24 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 23:54 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 20:42 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:23 +1000
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:29 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 16:26 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 07:40 +1000
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:42 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-30 07:05 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-01 19:50 +1000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 04:54 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 18:33 +0000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 05:22 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 -0700
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 20:03 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 05:38 -0700
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-04 07:56 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 18:22 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:07 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:02 -0500
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:30 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-04 21:52 +0200
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:57 -0500
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-05 06:13 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 15:42 -0500
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-05 15:23 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-06 06:56 +1000
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-05 15:08 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-06 12:03 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 15:06 -0700
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-30 06:57 +1000

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#358799

On 7/25/2015 2:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/24/2015 3:56 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:04:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2015 11:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I already contributed to physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's your fantasy, Ken. I have no idea what motivates you to pretend
>>>>>> this way, but it's not healthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no pretension on my part. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of Gravity and
>>>>
>>>> You do not have a theory. So far you have made one quantitative
>>>> prediction of your theory, which does not match experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Your thought that you have done anything that has given rise to any new
>>>> theory is a pretense.
>>>
>>> You really are a joke Bodkin. At least Ken has achieved something even if it
>>> is wrong.
>>
>> I disagree. If what he has proposed is wrong, then it is of no further
>> value in science. Period.
>
> You are a moron.....you are in no position to judge.

Well, then, let's see what scientists make of it.

>>
>>> It is no more wrong than Einstein's silly 'contribution' to physics.
>>> You on the other hand are just a typical religious preacher who criticizes
>>> anything that is contrary to his beliefs. You have not contributed anything to
>>> physics and never will because you have no scientific aptitude and know
>>> nothing about the subject.
>>>
>>> __
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#358629

On 7/25/2015 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:04:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/24/2015 11:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:49:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 10:32 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same on the moon or in the ISS. The laws of physics are the same
>>>>>>>> only if the observers are in a state of absolute rest in the aether. But no objects in the universe
>>>>>>>> is in a state of absolute rest in the aether.
>>>>>>> Like so many around here, you ought to change your hobby. This one you simply
>>>>>>> cannot do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seto is one of those people who would love to contribute to physics,
>>>>>
>>>>> I already contributed to physics.
>>>>
>>>> That's your fantasy, Ken. I have no idea what motivates you to pretend
>>>> this way, but it's not healthy.
>>>
>>> There is no pretension on my part. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of Gravity and
>>
>> You do not have a theory. So far you have made one quantitative
>> prediction of your theory, which does not match experiment.
>
> Hey moron....I do have a theory. It does match the experimental data from the traveling twin's point of

No, Ken, it does not.

> view. You refused to give the SR calclation from the traveling twin's point of view. That mean that SR

Yes, I refused, because that answer, which DOES agree with data, is 
available EVERYWHERE to ANYONE.

>will give the wrong answer....SR's calculation is as follows:
> The earth clock will accumulate less clock days 244.6/gamma.

Nope. That's NOT the SR result.

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
>>
>> Your thought that you have done anything that has given rise to any new
>> theory is a pretense.
>>
>>> units grvity with the other forces of nature. Model Mechanics resolves all the problmatic
>>> observations of current theories.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#358634

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 1:46:25 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/25/2015 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:04:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/24/2015 11:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:49:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 7/23/2015 6:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/21/2015 10:32 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same on the moon or in the ISS. The laws of physics are the same
> >>>>>>>> only if the observers are in a state of absolute rest in the aether. But no objects in the universe
> >>>>>>>> is in a state of absolute rest in the aether.
> >>>>>>> Like so many around here, you ought to change your hobby. This one you simply
> >>>>>>> cannot do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Seto is one of those people who would love to contribute to physics,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I already contributed to physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's your fantasy, Ken. I have no idea what motivates you to pretend
> >>>> this way, but it's not healthy.
> >>>
> >>> There is no pretension on my part. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of Gravity and
> >>
> >> You do not have a theory. So far you have made one quantitative
> >> prediction of your theory, which does not match experiment.
> >
> > Hey moron....I do have a theory. It does match the experimental data from the traveling twin's point of
> 
> No, Ken, it does not.

You are a fucking moron so your opinion doesn't count.
> 
> > view. You refused to give the SR calclation from the traveling twin's point of view. That mean that SR
> 
> Yes, I refused, because that answer, which DOES agree with data, is 
> available EVERYWHERE to ANYONE.

No its not available anywhere that's why you refused to produce it.
> 
> >will give the wrong answer....SR's calculation is as follows:
> > The earth clock will accumulate less clock days 244.6/gamma.
> 
> Nope. That's NOT the SR result.
>
That's the SR result. 

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

#358798

On 7/25/2015 1:58 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 1:46:25 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/25/2015 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:04:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/24/2015 11:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:49:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 10:32 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same on the moon or in the ISS. The laws of physics are the same
>>>>>>>>>> only if the observers are in a state of absolute rest in the aether. But no objects in the universe
>>>>>>>>>> is in a state of absolute rest in the aether.
>>>>>>>>> Like so many around here, you ought to change your hobby. This one you simply
>>>>>>>>> cannot do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seto is one of those people who would love to contribute to physics,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I already contributed to physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's your fantasy, Ken. I have no idea what motivates you to pretend
>>>>>> this way, but it's not healthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no pretension on my part. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of Gravity and
>>>>
>>>> You do not have a theory. So far you have made one quantitative
>>>> prediction of your theory, which does not match experiment.
>>>
>>> Hey moron....I do have a theory. It does match the experimental data from the traveling twin's point of
>>
>> No, Ken, it does not.
>
> You are a fucking moron so your opinion doesn't count.
>>
>>> view. You refused to give the SR calclation from the traveling twin's point of view. That mean that SR
>>
>> Yes, I refused, because that answer, which DOES agree with data, is
>> available EVERYWHERE to ANYONE.
>
> No its not available anywhere that's why you refused to produce it.

Are you an invalid? Are you bedridden? Are you allowed out without an 
escort?

Ken, you can live in a fantasy world if it's important to you. If you 
want to believe that no information exists in the real world unless it 
is presented to you on usenet, then I guess that's the way you'll operate.

>>
>>> will give the wrong answer....SR's calculation is as follows:
>>> The earth clock will accumulate less clock days 244.6/gamma.
>>
>> Nope. That's NOT the SR result.
>>
> That's the SR result.
>


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

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

#358660

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hw@....> writes:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:15:55 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>>Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes:

>>So, Henry , do you believe that promoting BaTh is actually achieving

>>You're so predictible, Henry .  Just yesterday I posted how Paul A. posts

>>moving sources.  What a fool you are, Henry!

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you really truly are stupid, aren't you, Ralph.
Or, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you're simply insane, by Einstein's definition,
Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you know perfectly why I am doing this,
Mr. Rabbidge.

>Hey Moron-y, is it because of you that there are so many funny jokes going
>around about Irish?

Isn't "Rabbidge" Irish, Ralph?

>>And I know that you never looked at Paul's links.  Why?  Because you claim
>>not one of them measures the speed of light from a moving source. Yet the
>>title of the Filippas-Fox experiment is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a
>>Moving Source".  Moreover, in the very first sentence, it mentions how two
>>other experiments (at the time, 1964) measure the speed of gammas from

>Paul's circular logic will never prove anything. All the experiments he
>referred to are not worth anything.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, burying your head in that Australian sand isn't
going to help you learn about the real world, Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm 
Rabbidge, you shouldn't bury your head in that sand, Ralph, kangaroos
poop there, you know, Mr. Rabbidge.

So, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why don't you read the Filippas-Fox experiment
and see what they did, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, and see if you can find
any flaws in it, Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you will find that
they do measure the one-way speed of light and they find it to be c,
even though BaTh predicts it would be moving at nearly 2c.

> Nobody has directly measured the OW light
>speed from a moving source. End of story. 

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, again burying your head in the kangaroo poop
and denying reality isn't going to do anything other than to make you
into a bigger fool than you are already, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.  Ralph,
the Filippas-Fox measures the one-way speed of light very simply.  Get
times when gamma is generated and when it reaches the destination.  
Subtract.  Divide by distance between them.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge,
that's simple enough, Ralph, that even you should be able to understand
it, Ralph.

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

#358507

On 23.07.2015 23:05, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:50:29 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
> (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes:
>>
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>
>>
>> If you think the science in Paul's
>> links is wrong, show us!  Pick just one of them, any one, and prove to us
>> that the best universities Down Under have produced a great scientist, and
>> they have taught you more than how to photoshop a diploma.

Ralph Malcom Rabbidge seems to have serious reading
comprehension problems, and is probably unable to read
a scientific article containing math.
And since he doesn't understand the experiments, he find them
"unconvincing", and think that they will go away if he call
them nonsense.

Ralph Malcom Rabbidge would only accept experiments which
he know are infeasible, so they never can be performed, like this:

> Hey Moron-y, tell me about an experiment that has directly proved light from a
> moving source moves at the same speed as light from one at rest. It has to be
> done over the same path using the same clocks and at the same time or it will
> be open to interpretation and meaningless.

Ralph, if you think these experiments are open to interpretation,
why don't you show what alternative interpretations could be?
If the BaTh is a correct model of reality, it must be able
to predict what is measured in these experiments.
Can you show us that it is?

https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

-- 
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

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

#358802

On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
>

I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I 
don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is 
convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being 
unconvinced.

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

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

#358838

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
>> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
>>
>
>I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I 
>don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is 
>convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being 
>unconvinced.

Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
indoctrination?

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358841

On 7/27/2015 5:19 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
>>> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
>>>
>>
>> I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I
>> don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is
>> convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being
>> unconvinced.
>
> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
> indoctrination?

I believe that anyone who thinks that ALL the books are contaminants and 
that the consensus of the educated is nothing but brainwashing, is a 
Kook. Not just a kook, but a Kook. A 
lawnchair-wedged-against-the-doorknob, never-take-me-alive Kook.

You are a Kook. You take pride in thinking differently, and you tell 
yourself that you are the only sane one in a vast sea of idiots and 
lunatics.

And while you pat yourself on the back for being privileged with a 
singular view of The Truth, the world marches on and leaves you to rot 
in your dark living room behind drawn curtains.

>
> __
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
>


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

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

#358911

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:45:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/27/2015 5:19 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>>>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
>>>> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I
>>> don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is
>>> convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being
>>> unconvinced.
>>
>> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
>> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
>> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
>> indoctrination?
>
>I believe that anyone who thinks that ALL the books are contaminants and 
>that the consensus of the educated is nothing but brainwashing, is a 
>Kook. Not just a kook, but a Kook. A 
>lawnchair-wedged-against-the-doorknob, never-take-me-alive Kook.

Bodkin, even a self-confessed scientific ignoramus like youself should still
be able to do better than this. In every motel in the world and in many olther
places, you will find a particular book. Its contents are 99.99% fiction plus
a few folk stories yet it still the major source of material used for
indoctrination. A very large proportion of the human population of this planet
still believes everything that is written in it. No doubt you are one of
those.

>You are a Kook. You take pride in thinking differently, and you tell 
>yourself that you are the only sane one in a vast sea of idiots and 
>lunatics.
>
>And while you pat yourself on the back for being privileged with a 
>singular view of The Truth, the world marches on and leaves you to rot 
>in your dark living room behind drawn curtains.
>
>>
>> __
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358930

On 7/28/2015 3:52 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:45:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2015 5:19 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
>>>>> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I
>>>> don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is
>>>> convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being
>>>> unconvinced.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
>>> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
>>> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
>>> indoctrination?
>>
>> I believe that anyone who thinks that ALL the books are contaminants and
>> that the consensus of the educated is nothing but brainwashing, is a
>> Kook. Not just a kook, but a Kook. A
>> lawnchair-wedged-against-the-doorknob, never-take-me-alive Kook.
>
> Bodkin, even a self-confessed scientific ignoramus like youself should still
> be able to do better than this. In every motel in the world and in many olther
> places, you will find a particular book. Its contents are 99.99% fiction plus
> a few folk stories yet it still the major source of material used for
> indoctrination. A very large proportion of the human population of this planet
> still believes everything that is written in it. No doubt you are one of
> those.

And from an instance of a notable book like this, you conclude that ALL 
books are not worth the paper they are written on. And so you pull the 
shades down and stockpile drinking water, and you pitch yourself as the 
only voice of reason by stepping away from the rest of the world you 
regard with disdain.

>
>> You are a Kook. You take pride in thinking differently, and you tell
>> yourself that you are the only sane one in a vast sea of idiots and
>> lunatics.
>>
>> And while you pat yourself on the back for being privileged with a
>> singular view of The Truth, the world marches on and leaves you to rot
>> in your dark living room behind drawn curtains.
>>
>>>
>>> __
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>>>
>
> __
>
> Henry Wilson DSc.
>


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

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

#358939

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:30 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/2015 3:52 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>>
>>> I believe that anyone who thinks that ALL the books are contaminants and
>>> that the consensus of the educated is nothing but brainwashing, is a
>>> Kook. Not just a kook, but a Kook. A
>>> lawnchair-wedged-against-the-doorknob, never-take-me-alive Kook.
>>
>> Bodkin, even a self-confessed scientific ignoramus like youself should still
>> be able to do better than this. In every motel in the world and in many olther
>> places, you will find a particular book. Its contents are 99.99% fiction plus
>> a few folk stories yet it still the major source of material used for
>> indoctrination. A very large proportion of the human population of this planet
>> still believes everything that is written in it. No doubt you are one of
>> those.
>
>And from an instance of a notable book like this, you conclude that ALL 
>books are not worth the paper they are written on. 

The book is only notable due to its ability to deceive.
 
>And so you pull the 
>shades down and stockpile drinking water, and you pitch yourself as the 
>only voice of reason by stepping away from the rest of the world you 
>regard with disdain.

poor old fella....why don't you get a life Bodkin instead of wasting it
writing crap on these NGs

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358843

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 3:18:59 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 7/25/2015 6:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> >>> So Henry finds the experiments nauseating and uninteresting!:-D
> >> No, the word you are looking for is 'unconvincing'.
> >>
> >
> >I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I 
> >don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is 
> >convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being 
> >unconvinced.
> 
> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
> indoctrination?

Has it occurred to you that you might be a typical victim of ignorance?

--
Jan

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

#358879

On 28.07.2015 00:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:44:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the relevant point is your being unconvinced is irrelevant. I
>> don't know why you think scientists need to present a case that is
>> convincing to you personally, or that you claim a victory by being
>> unconvinced.
>
> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
> system.

Well said.
Real scientists know that physics isn't a matter of belief,
but of hard evidence. The only thing that matters in physics
is experimental evidence like this:

https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

That's why all real scientists know that the only valid
theories within their domain are SR and GR.

However, some gullible non scientists think they
can choose what theory to believe in, and ignore anything
that doesn't support their belief system, like
these experiments:

https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
see pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

Some are even so gullible and ignorant that they choose to
believe in theories that are falsified by hundreds of
experiments, like the emission (or ballistic) theory. :-D


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#358909

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:48:18 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>On 7/27/2015 5:19 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
>> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
>> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
>> indoctrination?
>
>Victim of indoctrination? That sounds like you, Henry.  Refusing to read
>the description of any experiment that refutes BaTh or verifies that light
>always moves at C.  Making false claims that state there has been no 
>experiment in support of the Second Postulate even though modern physics
>supports (depends on, actually) the Second Postulate every day.  You use
>a computer and GPS that depends on SR and GR to work at all, but claim
>SR/GR don't work.  You're the victim of indoctrination, Ralph.  
>Self-indoctrination.

Ah! I love to see the relativist ratpack really aroused.... Their only mode of
defence is to repeat the same old claims about all the bogus experiments that
were performed by dingleberries for dingleberries and refereed by
dingleberries and which don't contain a word of worthwhile information.

Having read them all thoroughly, I can only liken the ratpack's behavior to
that of a devout christian who quotes the bible all day or a muslim reading
endlessly from his koran.

Like everything in the universe that is capable of traveling from A to B,
light behaves ballistically. End of story.  

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358929

On 7/28/2015 3:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:48:18 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
> (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2015 5:19 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>> Bodkin, some people are more gullible than others and those who live by faith
>>> alone will readily accept anything that appears to support their belief
>>> system. Has it never occured to you that you might be a typical victim of
>>> indoctrination?
>>
>> Victim of indoctrination? That sounds like you, Henry.  Refusing to read
>> the description of any experiment that refutes BaTh or verifies that light
>> always moves at C.  Making false claims that state there has been no
>> experiment in support of the Second Postulate even though modern physics
>> supports (depends on, actually) the Second Postulate every day.  You use
>> a computer and GPS that depends on SR and GR to work at all, but claim
>> SR/GR don't work.  You're the victim of indoctrination, Ralph.
>> Self-indoctrination.
>
> Ah! I love to see the relativist ratpack really aroused.... Their only mode of
> defence is to repeat the same old claims about all the bogus experiments that
> were performed by dingleberries for dingleberries and refereed by
> dingleberries and which don't contain a word of worthwhile information.
>
> Having read them all thoroughly, I can only liken the ratpack's behavior to
> that of a devout christian who quotes the bible all day or a muslim reading
> endlessly from his koran.
>
> Like everything in the universe that is capable of traveling from A to B,
> light behaves ballistically. End of story.
>

Henry saith:
"Ah, I love to see the arithmetician ratpack really aroused.... Their 
only mode of defense is to repeat the same old claims that (-2)(-4)=+8, 
and citing all sorts of books that were written by arithmetician asses 
for arithmetician asses and edited by arithmetician asses and which 
don't contain a single word of worthwhile information. Having read them 
all thoroughly, I can only like the ratpack's behavior to that of devout 
Christians who quote the bible all day or a Muslim reading endlessly 
from his Koran. Like everything in the universe that is capable of being 
counted, the product of two negative numbers is a negative number. End 
of story."

And he's proud of it.


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

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

#358973

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hw@....> writes:

>On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:48:18 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>>Victim of indoctrination? That sounds like you, Henry.  Refusing to read

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you really are too stupid to learn, aren't you, 
Ralph.  Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I am thinking that you really must be
insane (by Einstein's definition), Ralph, since there is no way anyone
could be that stupid, Ralph, but still manage to remember to breathe, 
Ralph.

>>SR/GR don't work.  You're the victim of indoctrination, Ralph.  

Ralph, you missed a "Ralph", Ralph.

>Ah! I love to see the relativist ratpack really aroused.... Their only mode of
>defence is to repeat the same old claims about all the bogus experiments that
>were performed by dingleberries for dingleberries and refereed by
>dingleberries and which don't contain a word of worthwhile information.

Ralph, it is you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is burying his head in the
sand and refusing to look at Paul's links, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. That is
indoctrination, Ralph.  Self-indoctrination.

>Having read them all thoroughly,

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, no way that you read a single one of the papers
in Paul's links, Ralph.  Ralph, you have proven many times, Ralph, that
you haven't gone past the first sentence, Ralph.

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

#358631

W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lipca 2015 22:32:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
 
> There is actually nothing outrageously wrong with the Ptolemy system,
> it's simply what we'd call now a Fourier-type series expansion of the
> heliocentric model. So yes, it's clumsy, but it's not wrong in the same
> sense other series expansion schemes in physics (e.g. Feynman diagrams)
> are not wrong. Of course the entire metaphysical edifice on top of it was
> way off but that's another story entirely.

Of course - You are right!

Afterall it's evident the whole SR (meta)phisical claims,
like the c = inv, a time dilation, and the whole space-time concept,
are just an idiotic improvisation... of imbeciles;

Perfectly analogously to the inquisitors in the geocentric era,
which have claim the great idiotic ideas also...
well, maybe a little less idiotic.

And it's completely irrespective of any experimental data, evidence!

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

#358640

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 10:47:15 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lipca 2015 22:32:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>  
> > There is actually nothing outrageously wrong with the Ptolemy system,
> > it's simply what we'd call now a Fourier-type series expansion of the
> > heliocentric model. So yes, it's clumsy, but it's not wrong in the same
> > sense other series expansion schemes in physics (e.g. Feynman diagrams)
> > are not wrong. Of course the entire metaphysical edifice on top of it was
> > way off but that's another story entirely.
> 
> Of course - You are right!
> 
> Afterall it's evident the whole SR (meta)phisical claims,
> like the c = inv, a time dilation, and the whole space-time concept,
> are just an idiotic improvisation... of imbeciles;

No, it's standard in physics. For example phase space in classical Hamiltonian
mechanics is also an abstraction with some geometric properties (like time
evolution of the system preserves volumes) yet I don't see you screaming
this is "idiotic improvisation of imbeciles". By the way, I bet you don't
actually know much about the subject, am I right?

> Perfectly analogously to the inquisitors in the geocentric era,
> which have claim the great idiotic ideas also...
> well, maybe a little less idiotic.
> 
> And it's completely irrespective of any experimental data, evidence!

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

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

#358644

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:d4dd31d0-1653-435f-87a9-9374b5aeb769@googlegroups.com...

> Afterall it's evident the whole SR (meta)phisical claims,
> like the c = inv, a time dilation, and the whole space-time concept,
> are just an idiotic improvisation... of imbeciles;

|No, it's standard in physics.

Yes, it's standard in your moronic physics. But even morons
like you are not stupid enough to treat your newspeak
seriously in reality.

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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web