Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370207 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-16 11:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 14 participants |
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.
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-17 06:46 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:10 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-17 12:24 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-18 01:53 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 13:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 15:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 14:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 17:11 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-18 17:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 03:01 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 14:36 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:15 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-20 16:27 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:34 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:17 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-19 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 07:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:26 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-21 12:03 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 22:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 07:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 07:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 17:07 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 09:05 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 18:33 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 21:28 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 21:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:58 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:11 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 23:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 06:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 07:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 09:20 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 04:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:56 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 08:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:37 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 15:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 07:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 19:27 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2nlfh$rob$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370470 |
On 11/20/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> 2. You claimed that a second is a universal interval of time >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I did not. I never said that. >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did.....you claimed that the speed of light, as defined by a clock second, is a universal constant. >>>>> This means that a clock second is a universal intrval of time. >>>> >>>> No, it does not mean that. As pointed out before MANY TIMES, the speed >>>> of light is a RATIO of distance and time. The time can change and the >>>> ratio can stay the same, because the distance also changes. This is like >>>> the ratio 6/3 is the same as the ratio 4/2, even though 6 is not the >>>> same as 4 and 3 is not the same as 2. >>> >>> No physical evidence of physical length change >> >> Oh but there is. >> >>> (meter stick return the same length after a journey) >> >> One does not EXPECT in relativity for the length of the stick to remain >> shortened after it comes to rest. > > This means that length contraction is not real. Assertion is not a valid argument. It is not necessary for contraction to persist when the motion stops for it to be considered real. Even in ordinary life, your assertion doesn't hold. If I have a spring and I give it a push to get it moving, it will compress. You can watch it do that. When I let it stop, it will return to original length. So are you going to say that the compression you actually WATCHED is not real? >..it is invented by physicists to maintain the constant speed of light. A clock return > after journey will accumulate less clock seconds....this means that moving clock will > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate. The combination of imaginary length contraction > and real clock slowing to give constant light speed is absurd. > IRT resolves this absurdity by sayng that there is no physical length contraction. Howerver > the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be 1/gamma meters....this > prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's mater > stick is it material length. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 06:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bdcd4f25-656f-4305-b615-a122da1be984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370478 |
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/20/2015 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>>> 2. You claimed that a second is a universal interval of time > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, I did not. I never said that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes you did.....you claimed that the speed of light, as defined by a clock second, is a universal constant. > >>>>> This means that a clock second is a universal intrval of time. > >>>> > >>>> No, it does not mean that. As pointed out before MANY TIMES, the speed > >>>> of light is a RATIO of distance and time. The time can change and the > >>>> ratio can stay the same, because the distance also changes. This is like > >>>> the ratio 6/3 is the same as the ratio 4/2, even though 6 is not the > >>>> same as 4 and 3 is not the same as 2. > >>> > >>> No physical evidence of physical length change > >> > >> Oh but there is. > >> > >>> (meter stick return the same length after a journey) > >> > >> One does not EXPECT in relativity for the length of the stick to remain > >> shortened after it comes to rest. > > > > This means that length contraction is not real. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. It is not necessary for contraction > to persist when the motion stops for it to be considered real. How does the meter stick know when the motion stops?.....stop wrt what? The aether? Why does motion affects the length of a meter stick? Why does a meter stick recover its length and the clock does not recover its loss seconds???? > > Even in ordinary life, your assertion doesn't hold. If I have a spring > and I give it a push to get it moving, it will compress. You can watch > it do that. When I let it stop, it will return to original length. So > are you going to say that the compression you actually WATCHED is not real? ROTFLOL....so the meter stick is a spring or a rubber meter stick? But we are talking about a metal meter stick. > > >..it is invented by physicists to maintain the constant speed of light. A clock return > > after journey will accumulate less clock seconds....this means that moving clock will > > accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate. The combination of imaginary length contraction > > and real clock slowing to give constant light speed is absurd. > > IRT resolves this absurdity by sayng that there is no physical length contraction. Howerver > > the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be 1/gamma meters....this > > prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's mater > > stick is it material length. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 12:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <OIadnc39zohgLM3LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #370535 |
On 11/21/15 11/21/15 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> It is not necessary for contraction to persist when the motion stops for
>> it to be considered real.
>
> How does the meter stick know when the motion stops?
It doesn't. But then IT DOESN'T NEED TO. Because in relativity "length
contraction" NEVER affects the object itself (here a meter stick); rather it
affects how SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES IT. That observer can CERTAINLY tell
when the meter stick stops moving.
> .....stop wrt what?
Relative to the observer who is observing the "length contraction" (or rather,
relative to the inertial frame in which the observer is at rest).
> Why does motion affects the length of a meter stick?
IT DOESN'T.
What is affected is HOW SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES ITS LENGTH.
> Why does a meter stick recover its length and the clock does not recover its
> loss seconds????
Because "length of a meterstick" is a differential measurement but "time
indicated on a clock" is an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT. If one discusses the clock's
tick intervals, then the tick interval "recovers" -- because tick interval is a
DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENT. If one discusses length measured by an odometer, it
does not "recover" -- because an odometer makes an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT.
If you don't know the difference between differential and
integral measurements, then that is just one more case of
your being unprepared to discuss physics.
> a curved path requires the object to change direction constantly and thus it
> is not inertial.
This depends on the definition of "inertial", WHICH IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT
THEORIES. Your statement is correct in Newtonian mechanics and in SR; it is not
correct in GR. In GR objects with are not affected by external forces [#] are
said to move inertially -- such as planets and moons (which obviously have
curved paths in space).
[#] In GR, gravity is NOT a force.
When you are so completely ignorant of SR, and when you cannot remember what
people have told you before, you are DOOMED to repeat nonsense. Give it up --
physics is CLEARLY too difficult for you, given your clear and obvious mental
disabilities: EVERY claim you have ever made about "problems" in SR is really a
problem in YOUR PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF SR, and you repeat the same invalid
claims over and over and over. You have been told this literally dozens of times
over the past decade or so, and you still cannot remember it. That is a serious
mental failure ON YOUR PART.
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 | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd71c601-4f85-446d-b664-db9cacb8900a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370545 |
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 10:03:43 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/21/15, 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Why does a meter stick recover its length and the clock does not > > recover its loss seconds???? > > Because "length of a meterstick" is a differential measurement but > "time indicated on a clock" is an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT. If one > discusses the clock's tick intervals, then the tick interval > "recovers" -- because tick interval is a DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENT. > If one discusses length measured by an odometer, it does not > "recover" -- because an odometer makes an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT. > > If you don't know the difference between differential and > integral measurements, then that is just one more case of > your being unprepared to discuss physics. Just a while ago, Tom believed in the exact opposite of what it has written down above. Remember that Koobee Wublee said length contraction is not an accumulative effect but time dilation is. Well, now Tom has taken Koobee Wublee's teaching. The consequence of this is that the Twin paradox can be proven a fatal contradiction to SR with this correct assessment of the Lorentz transform as Tom has regurgitated Koobee Wublee's saying above. Why has Tom failed to recognize the fatal contradiction of SR? Well, Tom is supposed to think, but the priest of SR does not. The priest is an opportunist who likes to copy and paste other scholars' works for the proliferation of the religion of Relativity. <shrug> > In GR, gravity is NOT a force. Hmmm... That is very debatable. Since curved space along does not manifest gravity, it should be very safe to state that gravity is solely caused by gravitational time dilation. From the geodesic equations of GR, it should be very clear that gravitational time dilation yields GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. Yes, even under GR, gravity is still a force. <shrug> When you are so completely ignorant of relativity (both SR and GR), and when you cannot remember what Koobee Wublee has told you before, you are DOOMED to repeat nonsense. Give it up -- physics is CLEARLY too difficult for you, given your clear and obvious mental disabilities: EVERY claim you have ever made about the justification to continue to worship the religion of relativity is really a problem in YOUR PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF SR AND GR, and you have repeated the same invalid claims over and over and over. You have been told this literally dozens of times over the past decade or so, and you still cannot remember it. That is a serious mental failure ON YOUR PART. Note to readers: Tom Roberts 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. Koobee Wublee replies to this autistic retard him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may not recognize its mistakes. It has proven itself to be unable and unwilling to learn anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 11:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2vjeh$vej$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370597 |
On 11/22/2015 12:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Yes, even under GR, gravity is still a force. <shrug> I think you've just demonstrated yet again that you don't have the foggiest idea what GR says. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 07:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370545 |
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 1:03:43 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/21/15 11/21/15 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> It is not necessary for contraction to persist when the motion stops for > >> it to be considered real. > > > > How does the meter stick know when the motion stops? > > It doesn't. But then IT DOESN'T NEED TO. Because in relativity "length > contraction" NEVER affects the object itself (here a meter stick); rather it > affects how SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES IT. That observer can CERTAINLY tell > when the meter stick stops moving. "length contraction" NEVER affects the object itself (here a meter stick)" Are you saying that length contraction is not material (physical)??? BTW I object your use of the phrase " SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES IT". There is no such measurement.....SR uses the LT to predict the length of a moving meter stick to be 1/gamma. However, the observer does not know what length contraction means. Is it an apparent effect? Is it a projection effect? Is it a material effect? In IRT, the length contraction equation means that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that that light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > > > > .....stop wrt what? > > Relative to the observer who is observing the "length contraction" (or rather, > relative to the inertial frame in which the observer is at rest). No observer is at rest in any inertial frame.....the LT math does not require such ridiculus assertions. > > > > Why does motion affects the length of a meter stick? > > IT DOESN'T. > What is affected is HOW SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES ITS LENGTH. So you admit that length contraction is not material and that's why a moving meter stick come back the same material length. > > > > Why does a meter stick recover its length and the clock does not recover its > > loss seconds???? > > Because "length of a meterstick" is a differential measurement but "time > indicated on a clock" is an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT. If one discusses the clock's > tick intervals, then the tick interval "recovers" -- because tick interval is >a DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENT. SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES IT. Does that mean that a clock second has different duration in different frames? >If one discusses length measured by an odometer, it > does not "recover" -- because an odometer makes an INTEGRAL MEASUREMENT. The rate of an odometer accumulates mileage is dependent on its velocity relative to the road....in that case the road is the ether. The observer makes an integral prediction by assuming that he is at rest wrt the road (the ether). > > If you don't know the difference between differential and > integral measurements, then that is just one more case of > your being unprepared to discuss physics. > > > > a curved path requires the object to change direction constantly and thus it > > is not inertial. > > This depends on the definition of "inertial", WHICH IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT > THEORIES. Your statement is correct in Newtonian mechanics and in SR; We are talking about SR. >it is not > correct in GR. In GR objects with are not affected by external forces [#] are > said to move inertially -- such as planets and moons (which obviously have > curved paths in space). > > [#] In GR, gravity is NOT a force. So maybe GR is wrong??? > > 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. Bullying is not scientific.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5cb83a69-07c9-4c77-9ca5-61f832b5aa82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370625 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Bullying is not scientific. Neither is spewing baloney like you do. And it's not bullying when factually describing a willfully-ignorant baloney-spewer like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 17:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2sp7m$6d8$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370625 |
Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... |Bullying is not scientific. Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 09:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370631 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. Then you don't know what bullying mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 18:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2su9k$bnn$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370638 |
Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. |Then you don't know what bullying mean. Rather, you don't know science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73d60390-757b-4183-962d-4c607763616a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370640 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. > > |Then you don't know what bullying mean. > > Rather, you don't know science. Given your behaviour on this NG it's not surprising why you experience those problems. In real life they are very rare. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2t8gh$mo1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370646 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:73d60390-757b-4183-962d-4c607763616a@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. > > |Then you don't know what bullying mean. > > Rather, you don't know science. |Given your behaviour on this NG it's not surprising why you experience those problems. |In real life they are very rare. Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened voluntarily. When science is reasonable, it's very rare. But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as set of prejudices...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 21:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2cdea58e-f338-4c45-b996-931cbc71e9ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370654 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:73d60390-757b-4183-962d-4c607763616a@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > > > > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. > > > > |Then you don't know what bullying mean. > > > > Rather, you don't know science. > > |Given your behaviour on this NG it's not surprising why you experience > those problems. > |In real life they are very rare. > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > voluntarily. No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general sense, of course there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human activity has some of that. So in this sense this is not saying anything interesting or new or peculiar to science. So the bottom line is: the answer is FAPP "no". > When science is reasonable, it's very rare. An opinion. I respect that but I also strongly disagree with it based on experience. > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > set of prejudices... He is not any "guru". You are using again the stupid crank belittling method, as if this had the power to change anything. It also speaks volumes of your intellectual maturity and honesty. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 23:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ace4e43-de27-4485-900d-66c825905993@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370675 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 06:52:32 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > voluntarily. > > No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general sense, of course > there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human activity > has some of that.So in this sense this is not saying anything interesting or new or > peculiar to science. Decide: 1)there is no bullying 2)there is bullying and it's so obvious that not even interesting > > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > > set of prejudices... > > He is not any "guru". Yes, he is. You are using again the stupid relativistic blind denying method, as if this had the power to change anything. It also speaks volumes of your intellectual maturity and honesty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74d9eb7f-7f15-45f9-aba4-13136bdaf698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370681 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:58:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 06:52:32 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > > voluntarily. > > > > No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general sense, of course > > there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human activity > > has some of that.So in this sense this is not saying anything interesting or new or > > peculiar to science. > > Decide: > 1)there is no bullying > 2)there is bullying and it's so obvious that not > even interesting The word you are looking for is "the order of magnitude". A married couple enjoying a good relationship can quarrel sometimes. > > > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > > > set of prejudices... > > > > He is not any "guru". > > Yes, he is. You are just inventing this silliness because it makes both Einstein and people you argue with look small and stupid. > You are using again the stupid relativistic > blind denying method, as if this had the power to change > anything. It also speaks volumes of your intellectual > maturity and honesty. I noticed cranks are fond of repeating their opponents' words. Anything to add on your own? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2vu7e$9ro$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370718 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:74d9eb7f-7f15-45f9-aba4-13136bdaf698@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:58:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 06:52:32 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB > napisał: > > > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > > voluntarily. > > > > No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general > > sense, of course > > there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human > > activity > > has some of that.So in this sense this is not saying anything > > interesting or new or > > peculiar to science. > > Decide: > 1)there is no bullying > 2)there is bullying and it's so obvious that not > even interesting > The word you are looking for is "the order of magnitude". No, poor idiot, science does not have the magnitude. Particularly your madness on a crusade against common sense. > > > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > > > set of prejudices... > > > > He is not any "guru". > > Yes, he is. |You are just inventing this silliness because it makes both Einstein and people |you argue with look small and stupid. You're denying it, because it makes both your idiot guru and you small and stupid as you are. > You are using again the stupid relativistic > blind denying method, as if this had the power to change > anything. It also speaks volumes of your intellectual > maturity and honesty. |I noticed cranks are fond of repeating their opponents' words. When I talk to an idiot, I'm descending to his level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 13:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0e8590d-d548-421b-b3ad-3c8acb0f369e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370739 |
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:50:57 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:74d9eb7f-7f15-45f9-aba4-13136bdaf698@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:58:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 06:52:32 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB > > napisał: > > > > > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > > > voluntarily. > > > > > > No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general > > > sense, of course > > > there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human > > > activity > > > has some of that.So in this sense this is not saying anything > > > interesting or new or > > > peculiar to science. > > > > Decide: > > 1)there is no bullying > > 2)there is bullying and it's so obvious that not > > even interesting > > > The word you are looking for is "the order of magnitude". > > No, poor idiot, science does not have the magnitude. Don't post if you have nothing to say. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 23:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6678da4-502a-407d-8cb4-569b60e8b441@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370742 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 22:11:48 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:50:57 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:74d9eb7f-7f15-45f9-aba4-13136bdaf698@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:58:14 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 06:52:32 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB > > > napisał: > > > > > > > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > > > > voluntarily. > > > > > > > > No, in the sense you seem to imply it is not. OTOH in a very general > > > > sense, of course > > > > there is some pushing-over but that's simply because ANY domain of human > > > > activity > > > > has some of that.So in this sense this is not saying anything > > > > interesting or new or > > > > peculiar to science. > > > > > > Decide: > > > 1)there is no bullying > > > 2)there is bullying and it's so obvious that not > > > even interesting > > > > > The word you are looking for is "the order of magnitude". > > > > No, poor idiot, science does not have the magnitude. > > Don't post if you have nothing to say. A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 06:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41bea14b-88c7-460b-9e80-24135b4f92b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370654 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:28:03 PM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:73d60390-757b-4183-962d-4c607763616a@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ddcb7a36-ba17-400e-8757-f905976d5610@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:07:20 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "kenseto" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:1ed80c7a-7463-4377-a419-d6cc19df68a5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |Bullying is not scientific. > > > > > > Wrong, Ken. Bullying is the very fundament of science. > > > > |Then you don't know what bullying mean. > > > > Rather, you don't know science. It is you who don't know science. > > |Given your behaviour on this NG it's not surprising why you experience > those problems. > |In real life they are very rare. > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > voluntarily. When science is reasonable, it's very rare. > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > set of prejudices... idiot...science is not bullying. Tom Roberts' remarks about me is bullying. I asked him what length contraction means and he gave me a bunch of baloney about different observers make different measurements on the length of a moving meter stick. I pointed out to him that there is no such measurement by any observer. Each observer use the LT to predict the length of a moving meter stick. He (Tom Roberts) got irritated and made bullying comments about me for not listening to what he said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37ec5056-b316-4ad1-acda-1762fd502643@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370695 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 15:28:11 UTC+1 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > > |Given your behaviour on this NG it's not surprising why you experience > > those problems. > > |In real life they are very rare. > > > > Of course, science is bullying only, when not listened > > voluntarily. When science is reasonable, it's very rare. > > But, since your guru idiot assumed common sense as > > set of prejudices... > > idiot...science is not bullying. Tom Roberts' remarks about me is bullying. Listen, you're 20 years here. You've meet a lot of scientists. Have you ever meet a SINGLE ONE following your imagination of a "true science way"? No, you haven't. So, if you, yourself, followed a "true science way" - you would have to change your theory of "true science way". You didn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web