Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <set...@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 10:05 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:34 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune strikes again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 12:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-07 21:48 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 13:13 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:42 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:06 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:50 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:07 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 20:07 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 21:25 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 10:21 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:45 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700
Stephane Baune poser strikes again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 12:50 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 13:46 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 08:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:52 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 08:33 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:53 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:11 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 11:02 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-08 20:47 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 14:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:36 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:48 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-12 06:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:13 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:45 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:35 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:41 -0700
SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 06:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 10:59 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Subject | SR is just another name for LET |
| Message-ID | <a71672b6-3868-40ab-88ed-bc178e236aaa@googlegroups.com> |
SR is just a different name for LET. What this mean is that SR is not a new theory of relatvity. In the course defending SR physicists invented the following ridiculus and impossible concepts: 1. Mutual time dilation....no experiment confirms this. A clock shows less accumulated clock seconds after a journey. The GPS rejects the idea of mutual time dilation.....the SR effect on the GPS is 7 us/day running slower than the ground clock. 2. Mutual length contraction....SR claims that a meter stick remains the same material length in all frames but an observer will claim that the projected length of a moving meter stick is 1/gamma meter long. 3. OWLS is constant in all frames but physicists refuse to measure OWLS directly.....even though they were able to measure the one-way speed of neutrino directly. I invented a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes the LET/SR math as a subset. There is no paradox in IRT. The main features of IRT are as follows: 1. The local speed of light is isotropic but the local value for the speed of light is distance dependent. 2. Time is absolute. The rate of passage of absolute time is insentive to motion. A clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. It represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the gound clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the passage of a redefinded GPS second corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and thus they are in synch in terms of absolute time. 3. The material length of a meter stick is constant in all frames. However the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be (1/gamma meter) long or (gamma meters) long. However only one of these predictions is correct. These predictions are based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2aba9e1-6576-48b3-b76b-0ec6a4db35e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363251 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: Hello sir... Im a first time poster here... > 2. Mutual length contraction....SR claims that a meter stick remains > the same material length in all No, SR doesnt say that... You seem confused. > 3. OWLS is constant in all frames but physicists refuse to > measure OWLS directly..... Why dont you measure it? Can you come up with such a setup? I await your example... > I invented a new theory of relativity called IRT. Oh? Can we see it? > A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modlemechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Hmmm... there seems to be something wrong with your link, it doesnt work. check into it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5orouapte4ogi35p3s239et4r5a3gfftq1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363253 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:26:28 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>Hello sir... Im a first time poster here...
>
>> 2. Mutual length contraction....SR claims that a meter stick remains
>> the same material length in all
>
>No, SR doesnt say that... You seem confused.
>
>
>> 3. OWLS is constant in all frames but physicists refuse to
>> measure OWLS directly.....
>
>Why dont you measure it? Can you come up with such a setup?
>I await your example...
>
>
>> I invented a new theory of relativity called IRT.
>
>Oh? Can we see it?
>
>> A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>> http://www.modlemechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
>Hmmm... there seems to be something wrong with your link, it doesnt work. check into it.
That isn't supposed to be modlemechanics,
it's supposed to be noodlemechanics.
And please quit screwing with url links. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54e57425-6c6e-4a6a-a437-01d95c03e569@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363253 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:26:29 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > Hello sir... Im a first time poster here... Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) been posting here for years. He is a racist and a moron. Example of these characterists are listed in the following link: http://modelmechanics.org/dehilster.pdf > > > 2. Mutual length contraction....SR claims that a meter stick remains > > the same material length in all > > No, SR doesnt say that... You seem confused. Moron SR does say that.....the material length of a meter stick remain the same in all frames. From the perspective of an observer a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > 3. OWLS is constant in all frames but physicists refuse to > > measure OWLS directly..... > > Why dont you measure it? Can you come up with such a setup? > I await your example... Why don't you measure it....your CNPA group have the money. Or perhaps you can ask your dad to fund the experiment. > > > > I invented a new theory of relativity called IRT. > > Oh? Can we see it? > > > A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > http://www.modlemechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > Hmmm... there seems to be something wrong with your link, it doesnt work. check into it. Moron...You can see it if you don't change the address of the link. Go to my original post and click on the link there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3031147-b402-4e07-809f-d0a713f050fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363264 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:38:16 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:26:29 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > Hello sir... Im a first time poster here... > > Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) been posting here for years. Oh...sorry if *you* mistunderstood. When I said "Im a first time poster here" that meant in *this* thread, NOT in this newsgroup. David? Who is that? First time I hear about that name. > I'm is a racist and a moron. Why do you call yourself that? You can be better.... You only need to Booolieve! > http://modelmechanics.org/dehiltser.pdf Sir, that link doest work. Can you fix it plz? > > > 2. Mutual length contraction....SR claims that a meter stick remains > > > the same material length in all > > > > No, SR doesnt say that... You seem confused. > > Moron SR does say that.....the material length of a meter stick > remain the same in all frames. No. SR syas taht the proper length of a stick stays the same. It also say that the length (meaning, the measured length) of a stick is frame dependent (Lor.contracted). >From the perspective of an observer a moving meter stick is > contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. Meaning that it is *measured* to be so. It REALLY is measured to be so. And since that measurement defined "length", it is its "length". > > > 3. OWLS is constant in all frames but physicists refuse to > > > measure OWLS directly..... > > > > Why dont you measure it? Can you come up with such a setup? > > I await your example... > > Why don't you measure it.... YOU want to know if its possible to measure it, so YOU do it. Dont ask others to to eat your mash potatoes for you...YOU must eat them if YOU want the nutrients. > your CNPA group have the money. CNPA? Whats that? > Moron...You can see it if you don't change the address of the link. > Go to my original post and click on the link there. I am... its not working. Can you try it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23b86e79-54a4-47f5-8d95-24ded7c73498@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363264 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) Ken Shito, rotchm name is Stephane Baune.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <set...@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA50DDC5DD1080seto@213.239.209.88> |
| In reply to | #363292 |
On 06 Sep 2015, dono wrote sci.physics.relativity: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> >> Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) > > Ken Shito, > > rotchm name is Stephane Baune. > No. You are stupid and want to trap me PD. rotchm is David Dehilster and is a racist. Here is the proof. http://modelmechanics.org/dehilster.pdf A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msitn4$utl$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #363292 |
"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> writes: >On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> >> Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) >Ken Shito, >rotchm name is Stephane Baune. No, rotcm is PD. That's because *everyone* is PD!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5feaae95-9b5b-465c-9ab2-0fcdf9fac512@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363311 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 10:44:54 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> Liar.....rotchm (aka David Dehilster) > > >Ken Shito, > > >rotchm name is David Dehilster > > No, rotcm is PD. That's because *everyone* is PD! Then idiot ken is andrew georges. But that begs the question... what name are you today? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82f5b794-369a-4201-b1a1-ad712f37f5d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363251 |
W dniu niedziela, 6 września 2015 18:18:21 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > SR is just a different name for LET. No! The LET is a classcal theory, ie. it's formally correct. And the SR is just a model, based on the LET. Simply: LET >> SR, because the SR is only a particular, special subset in the LET.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa416a06-a575-4b4e-9ab7-4d8f0380bf0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363258 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 6 września 2015 18:18:21 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > SR is just a different name for LET. > > No! > The LET is a classcal theory, ie. it's formally correct. LET is an ether theory....the math of LET is derived from the rest frame of the ether. > > And the SR is just a model, based on the LET. The math of SR was derived from the two postulates. However it turns out that the inertial frames of SR are just a different name for different locations in the ether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > Simply: > LET >> SR, because the SR is only a particular, special subset in the LET. No SR and LET are the same theory with different names.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8g4puapgo289rcuel9c40bre7bqdah7n8a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363266 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:50:26 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>> W dniu niedziela, 6 wrzesnia 2015 18:18:21 UTC+2 uzytkownik kenseto napisal:
>> > SR is just a different name for LET.
>>
>> No!
>> The LET is a classcal theory, ie. it's formally correct.
>
>LET is an ether theory....the math of LET is derived from the rest frame of the ether.
This message belongs in the lala land ethernut newsgroup.
>> And the SR is just a model, based on the LET.
>
>The math of SR was derived from the two postulates. However it turns out that the inertial frames of SR are just a different name for different locations in the ether. That's why SR and LET have the same math.
There is a difference, SR does not need a medium.
>> Simply:
>> LET >> SR, because the SR is only a particular, special subset in the LET.
>
>No SR and LET are the same theory with different names.
No, they are not, only nutcases even consider
that an ether exits or is needed.
Well, maybe ether between the ears is what
causes ethernut delusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3424ba4-0494-42a9-ad4f-5c5175a8d48c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363268 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 3:24:25 PM UTC-4, kefischer wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:50:26 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net> > wrote: > > >On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > >> W dniu niedziela, 6 wrzesnia 2015 18:18:21 UTC+2 uzytkownik kenseto napisal: > >> > SR is just a different name for LET. > >> > >> No! > >> The LET is a classcal theory, ie. it's formally correct. > > > >LET is an ether theory....the math of LET is derived from the rest frame of the ether. > > This message belongs in the lala land ethernut newsgroup. > > > >> And the SR is just a model, based on the LET. > > > >The math of SR was derived from the two postulates. However it turns out that the inertial frames of SR are just a different name for different locations in the ether. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > There is a difference, SR does not need a medium. > > > >> Simply: > >> LET >> SR, because the SR is only a particular, special subset in the LET. > > > >No SR and LET are the same theory with different names. > > No, they are not, only nutcases even consider > that an ether exits or is needed. > Well, maybe ether between the ears is what > causes ethernut delusions. No...you are a moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32a9a80f-18a1-45a3-a737-13ae999b2a6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363266 |
W dniu niedziela, 6 września 2015 20:50:28 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > The LET is a classcal theory, ie. it's formally correct. > > LET is an ether theory....the math of LET is derived from the rest frame of the ether. The LET is just about the waves in a stationary medium... called popullary as an ether... so, it's still a pure classics. > The math of SR was derived from the two postulates. However it turns out that the inertial frames of SR are just a different name for different locations in the ether. Indeed... and that is the standard procedure to makink a model... it's just an idealisation procedure, which is common for any model. > That's why SR and LET have the same math. No, the strict math is drastically different, than the modeled one, and further reinterpreted additionally, and treated as a full independent theory! For example: t = inv in the classics, but c' = c - v, ect. and in the SR model you just use: t' = ..., but c = inv, due to the model's basic convention! That is a great difference! > No SR and LET are the same theory with different names. For the SR amateurs only, ie. for the babes... these naked are especially nice. :) "Special relativity." What the 'special' key means? It's just that... nice. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9uOdndVwnvXNUHHInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363251 |
On 9/6/15 9/6/15 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
> SR is just a different name for LET.
Nope. Just plain wrong.
In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not (ironic, isn't
it, because LET stands for Lorentz Ether Theory -- that guy really got
around...). Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key concept of
LET is its completely unobservable ether.
Without Lorentz invariance, it would have been essentially impossible to
discover the mainstays of modern theoretical physics: the standard model of
particle physics and General Relativity.
Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <55ECD1CF.80705@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #363286 |
On 9/6/15 5:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not [...]. Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key > concept of LET is its completely unobservable ether. > I don't know much about LET, but I've seen it claimed that it is consistent with all experimental results. IF that is true, I don't understand how it is not contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone set me straight about that? -- https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e665107-4e34-4059-afa8-6017a01d3c99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363288 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:52:50 PM UTC-4, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > On 9/6/15 5:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not [...]. Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key > > concept of LET is its completely unobservable ether. > > > > I don't know much about LET, but I've seen it claimed that it is > consistent with all experimental results. IF that is true, I don't > understand how it is not contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone > set me straight about that? LET is consistent with all experimental results the same as SR. Why? Because they have the same math. With regard to the MMX I give valid explanation why it is not capable of detecting the ether in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf Three past experiments in this link detected the existence of the ether called the E-Matrix. > > -- > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfa8efad-dcb1-4a1b-9fe0-f72b982133c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363297 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 września 2015 02:55:25 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto: > LET is consistent with all experimental results the same as SR. Why? Not the same but better! For example the LET resolves easily these so-called anomalies, like of flyby, Pioneers, ect. > Because they have the same math. Math is similar only... the SR is much easier, simpler thus dominates among students, amateurs and the great pseudoscientists... relatively educated only. :) > With regard to the MMX I give valid explanation why it is not capable of detecting the ether in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > Three past experiments in this link detected the existence of the ether called the E-Matrix. > > > > -- > > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > > All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox". The ether frame has been detected long ago.. we move at 500 km/s to the Dorado constellation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ob6dnWTTC6Kpn3DInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363288 |
On 9/6/15 9/6/15 6:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > On 9/6/15 5:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not [...]. Indeed >> the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key >> concept of LET is its completely unobservable ether. > > I don't know much about LET, but I've seen it claimed that it is consistent with > all experimental results. Yes. And indeed LET is consistent with EVERY experiment that is consistent with SR, because the EXPERIMENTAL PREDICTIONS of LET are identical to those of SR, in every case. But the FOUNDATION of LET is quite different from that of SR, as is its theoretical structure. [LET = Lorentz Ether Theory] > IF that is true, I don't understand how it is not > contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone set me straight about that? LET is based on an ether at rest in a unique ether frame. In frames moving relative to the ether frame, one applies the Lorentz transform ether-frame => moving-frame. That is, motion relative to the ether causes time to "dilate" and lengths to "contract", and clocks to de-synchronize. This last is VERY strange (well, all three are rather strange). The fact that the Lorentz transforms form a group implies that: A) any inertial frame can serve equally well as the ether frame. B) no possible experiment can discover which frame is the ether frame. The fact that LET has a unique ether frame implies it does not obey Lorentz invariance, though its predictions for experimental results do obey it [@]. That, in turn, permits it to be experimentally indistinguishable from SR. [@] From the viewpoint of LET this is happenstance. From the viewpoint of SR it is essential and inherent due to the symmetry of the world. A major objection to LET is that it is inherently based on an "unmoved mover" [#] -- the ether. Another objection is that having an inherently unobservable basis is unseemly. [#] See Aristotle. Essentially all of modern theoretical physics is based on Lorentz invariance. So lacking it, LET is dead in the water today, and very few physicists are even aware of it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <55EDAABE.9030101@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #363317 |
On 9/6/15 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/6/15 9/6/15 6:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >> >> IF that is true, I don't understand how it is not >> contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone set me straight about that? > > LET is based on an ether at rest in a unique ether frame. In frames > moving relative to the ether frame, one applies the Lorentz transform > ether-frame => moving-frame. > [...] > Tom Roberts I understand your response (I think), but I don't see how that explains how LET is consistent with Michelson-Morley. Michelson-Morley (I think) said that no matter where the earth is in its orbit, it is always at rest wrt the ether (if there IS an ether). So the question is, how can the earth always be at rest wrt the ether, even though the earth is constantly changing its velocity wrt the sun? I've heard the idea that any large mass "entrains" the ether, and thus is locally always at rest wrt it, but that seems like a stretch to me ... and I would think that motion wrt the ether should then be detectible on a larger distance scale, and that hasn't happened. -- https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web