Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:36 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:58 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:34 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-11 21:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 05:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:04 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:53 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 08:49 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:25 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:37 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 16:38 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 23:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 09:43 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:40 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 12:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 22:12 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 04:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 05:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 05:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 06:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-14 06:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:36 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-16 07:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-18 03:21 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:48 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:52 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-15 21:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:07 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-17 05:59 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 18:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-19 05:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-20 05:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-21 05:47 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:13 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-22 06:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:56 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-23 14:55 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-22 06:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 15:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:07 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 09:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 17:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 12:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 20:36 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 22:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:42 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:11 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:08 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:16 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 17:55 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-28 18:38 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-29 11:48 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:22 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-28 19:40 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-24 23:10 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-25 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:03 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:14 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-21 14:27 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 21:56 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:21 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 11:18 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 20:43 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 19:41 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 19:46 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 19:11 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 21:16 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:57 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 22:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:27 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-15 23:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 01:47 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 10:09 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 06:53 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 19:09 +0000
The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 21:12 +0100
Re: The speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-18 22:14 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-19 22:25 +0100
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 06:10 -0800
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:22 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-20 17:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-21 02:32 +0100
Re: The speed of light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 09:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 14:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-17 22:35 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:14 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:58 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 05:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 05:48 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 06:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:44 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:31 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 00:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 19:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 23:44 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 15:02 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-20 22:34 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 23:16 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 10:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-21 18:52 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:19 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 20:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 20:50 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:46 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-17 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0bd432f0-3779-40dc-a1ac-ade853f90d13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374792 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:55:44 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of > > reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > This is not true. LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory, it is based on > Lorentz's writings ca 1890-1919 The time span is 30 years. It went from Aether believing to Aether doubting to complete Aether denial. Does Tom know what it is bullshitting about? <shrug> > Besides, the Larmor transform is ALGEBRAICALLY IDENTICAL to the > Lorentz transform. This is just not true in general. Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers are moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are indistinguishable. The self-styled physicists mostly know only this very special case. It is just ignorance. <shrug> > Thus there cannot possibly be any difference in predictions made > using the two transforms. Tom is so ignorant, and the problem is solely Tom's own. <shrug> > [... further responses to nonsense from Tom, not worth replying]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 22:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <taidnaSiFt03ZTvLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #374828 |
On 1/25/16 1/25/16 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:55:44 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Besides, the Larmor transform is ALGEBRAICALLY IDENTICAL to the Lorentz
>> transform.
>
> This is just not true in general. Only under a very special circumstance
> where the two observers are moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz
> transforms are indistinguishable.
I of course meant: given any two inertial frames A and B, the Lorentz transform
A -> B is algebraically identical to the Larmor transform A -> B.
So it _IS_ true in general (it holds for _ANY_ pair of frames).
Note to readers: Koobee Wublee 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 | 2016-01-25 22:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <910cd5a4-78bc-4dc1-9483-4d7e749c8311@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374834 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:55:44 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of > > reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > > Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers are > > moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are > > indistinguishable. The self-styled physicists mostly know only > > this very special case. It is just ignorance. <shrug> > given any two inertial frames A and B, All transforms including the Galilean, the Voigt, Larmor's, the Lorentz, and Lorentz's infinite other transforms allow both inertial and non-inertial frames of reference. For example, the Galilean transform in general is written as follows. <shrug> ** dt' = dt ** dx' = dx - v dt ** dy' = dy ** dz' = dz Where ** v = speed between the frames of reference Notice v does not have to be constant. The self-styled physicists are confused when they write the same transform in the more special case as described below. <shrug> ** t' = t ** x' = x - v t ** y' = y ** z' = z The confusion is totally of the relativistic morons including Tom. <shrug> > the Lorentz transform A -> B is algebraically identical to the > Larmor transform A -> B. So it _IS_ true in general (it holds > for _ANY_ pair of frames). In the very special case where both the primed and the unprimed frames of reference are moving in parallel, Larmor's transform can be written as followings. <shrug> ** dt = dt0 - v dx0 / c ** dx = dx0 - v dt0 ** dy = dy0 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) ** dz = dz0 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) And ** dt' = dt0 - v' dx0 / c ** dx' = dx0 - v' dt0 ** dy' = dy0 / sqrt(1 - v'^2 / c^2) ** dz' = dz0 / sqrt(1 - v'^2 / c^2) Where ** (dt0, dx0, dy0, dz0) = How the absolute frame of reference observes ** v = absolute speed of the unprimed ** v' = absolute speed of the primed Poincare was able to show any references to the absolute frame of reference to Larmor's transform in this special case vanish. That became the Lorentz transform. However in general, this is not true. Larmor's transform in general is not the same as the Lorentz transform. <shrug> Note to readers: Tom Roberts is among the most persistent idiots around here. Tom has been repeating its nonsense for many years, without any attempt to learn the subjects that Tom tries to write about. Koobee Wublee replies to Tom constantly to remind Tom of how ignorant Tom really is and as a service to readers who may worship Tom as a shaman for the religion of relativity and allow that stupid god of relativity, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, whisper bullshit into their ears. With that said, Tom is not capable of learning beyond the confines of the pile of textbooks that Tom is sitting on, and Tom's problem is entirely of Tom's own and not Koobee Wublee's. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87rac$o6s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374828 |
On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > This is just not true in general. Only under a very special circumstance where the > two observers are moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are indistinguishable. Prove that they are distinguishable in the otherwise case, Koobee. Go ahead. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 15:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7d10333-3fb0-40d8-9eec-4d4cab48abeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374850 |
On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: > On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers > > are moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms > > are indistinguishable. > > Prove that they are distinguishable in the otherwise case, Koobee. > Go ahead. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/VVd6Zay1vM0/T0DGgcfETeAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/D1InG0aJJaw/-ta4BOsO4TgJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 07:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8afh9$qdj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374881 |
On 1/26/2016 5:57 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >> On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers >>> are moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms >>> are indistinguishable. >> >> Prove that they are distinguishable in the otherwise case, Koobee. >> Go ahead. > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/VVd6Zay1vM0/T0DGgcfETeAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/D1InG0aJJaw/-ta4BOsO4TgJ > Thanks for these references, which I scanned, looking for experimentally distinguishable signatures between the two. I saw a lot of history, but nothing that would be classed as an experimental signature distinguishing the two. Perhaps you would be so good to point out exactly what you think would fall into that description? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c6c25b63-4043-4534-b3e7-e977ae2e0752@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374791 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:07:07 AM, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of > > reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > So show that. Show that there is a measurable difference between the two > which can be put to experimental test. It's your claim, so back it up. All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds are low, and at low observers' absolute speeds, all experiments are indistinguishable between SR and LET. According to the mathematics of SR and LET, only when the observers' absolute speeds become high, experimental result shall diverge between SR and LET. To accelerate an experimental platform to high speed is still beyond today's technological achievement. <shrug> > I also find it interesting that you say that the LORENTZ Ether Theory > (LET) is based on the Larmor transform, not the Lorentz transform. > When you say LET, are you meaning Larmor Ether Theory, or are you > just setting off firecrackers in your own mouth? There is no such hypothesis as Larmor's Ether Theory. <shrug> > > This is another myth. > > I agree with PD. That is because Odd Bodkin = PD. <shrug> > > Koobee Wublee takes it that PD means relativity to be SR not the > > Galilean relativity. > > No, I don't believe that's what he meant because LET makes the same > claim. SR is based on the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of relativity, but LET is based on Larmor's transform which says the absolute frame of reference must exist. Thus, SR and LET cannot possibly have made the same claims. Different mathematics predict different result should be a grade school logic, no? <shrug> > Recall that PD said that relativity makes testable predictions > that are DISTINCT from LET, not something that is the SAME > prediction as LET. This is not true. SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds > > are low, > > Koobee, this implies to me that you know for certain that your > absolute speed right now is low. How do you know that? Yes, Koobee Wublee knows the earth has a low absolute speed. <shrug> > > and at low observers' absolute > > speeds, all experiments are indistinguishable between SR and > > LET. According to the mathematics of SR and LET, only when > > the observers' absolute speeds become high, experimental > > result shall diverge between SR and LET. To accelerate an > > experimental platform to high speed is still beyond today's > > technological achievement. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87rio$p0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374829 |
On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:07:07 AM, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's >>> transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of >>> relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of >>> reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and >>> experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> >> >> So show that. Show that there is a measurable difference between the two >> which can be put to experimental test. It's your claim, so back it up. > > All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds are low, and > at low observers' absolute speeds, all experiments are indistinguishable > between SR and LET. According to the mathematics of SR and LET, only when > the observers' absolute speeds become high, experimental result shall diverge > between SR and LET. You have repeated your claim but not shown it. Show that there is a measurable difference between the two which can be put to experimental test. > To accelerate an experimental platform to high speed is > still beyond today's technological achievement. <shrug> > >> I also find it interesting that you say that the LORENTZ Ether Theory >> (LET) is based on the Larmor transform, not the Lorentz transform. >> When you say LET, are you meaning Larmor Ether Theory, or are you >> just setting off firecrackers in your own mouth? > > There is no such hypothesis as Larmor's Ether Theory. <shrug> > If it were based on the Larmor transformation, then it would be the Larmor Ether Theory, no? >>> This is another myth. >> >> I agree with PD. > > That is because Odd Bodkin = PD. <shrug> > >>> Koobee Wublee takes it that PD means relativity to be SR not the >>> Galilean relativity. >> >> No, I don't believe that's what he meant because LET makes the same >> claim. > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of > relativity, but LET is based on Larmor's transform which says the absolute > frame of reference must exist. Thus, SR and LET cannot possibly have made > the same claims. I did not say SR and LET make the same claims. I said something quite different. Please pay attention. > Different mathematics predict different result should be > a grade school logic, no? <shrug> > >> Recall that PD said that relativity makes testable predictions >> that are DISTINCT from LET, not something that is the SAME >> prediction as LET. > > This is not true. SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based > on Larmor's transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle > of relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of reference must > exist. They are mathematically different, and experimentations ought to tell > them apart. <shurg> So give an example of an experiment that would distinguish the two. > >>> All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds >>> are low, >> >> Koobee, this implies to me that you know for certain that your >> absolute speed right now is low. How do you know that? > > Yes, Koobee Wublee knows the earth has a low absolute speed. <shrug> And how do you know this? What is the upper bound on the Earth's absolute speed and how has this been determined? > >>> and at low observers' absolute >>> speeds, all experiments are indistinguishable between SR and >>> LET. According to the mathematics of SR and LET, only when >>> the observers' absolute speeds become high, experimental >>> result shall diverge between SR and LET. To accelerate an >>> experimental platform to high speed is still beyond today's >>> technological achievement. <shrug> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 16:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9545ff65-5955-493c-922b-ddaf9ba25194@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374851 |
On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of > > reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > > Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers are > > moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are > > indistinguishable. The self-styled physicists mostly know only > > this very special case. It is just ignorance. <shrug> > > > All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds are > > low, and at low observers' absolute speeds, all experiments are > > indistinguishable between SR and LET. According to the mathematics > > of SR and LET, only when the observers' absolute speeds become > > high, experimental result shall diverge between SR and LET. > > You have repeated your claim but not shown it. Show that there is a > measurable difference between the two which can be put to > experimental test. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/VVd6Zay1vM0/T0DGgcfETeAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/D1InG0aJJaw/-ta4BOsO4TgJ > If it were based on the Larmor transformation, then it would be the > Larmor Ether Theory, no? Not necessarily. <shrug> > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle > > of relativity, but LET is based on Larmor's transform which says > > the absolute frame of reference must exist. Thus, SR and LET > > cannot possibly have made the same claims. > > I did not say SR and LET make the same claims. I said something quite > different. Please pay attention. You said SR and LET are indistinguishable. <shrug> > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of reference > > must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> > > So give an example of an experiment that would distinguish the two. PD does not pay any attention. As Koobee Wublee has said, the necessary experiment has to accelerate the experimental platform to high speed, and that is still beyond today's technology. <shrug> > > Yes, Koobee Wublee knows the earth has a low absolute speed. > > <shrug> > > And how do you know this? How do you know otherwise? <shrug> > What is the upper bound on the Earth's absolute speed and how has this > been determined? A good hint is the CMBR dipole anisotropy. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 07:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ag11$r98$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374882 |
On 1/26/2016 6:08 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's >>> transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of >>> relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of >>> reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and >>> experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> >> >>> Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers are >>> moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are >>> indistinguishable. The self-styled physicists mostly know only >>> this very special case. It is just ignorance. <shrug> >> >>> All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds are >>> low, and at low observers' absolute speeds, all experiments are >>> indistinguishable between SR and LET. According to the mathematics >>> of SR and LET, only when the observers' absolute speeds become >>> high, experimental result shall diverge between SR and LET. >> >> You have repeated your claim but not shown it. Show that there is a >> measurable difference between the two which can be put to >> experimental test. > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/VVd6Zay1vM0/T0DGgcfETeAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/D1InG0aJJaw/-ta4BOsO4TgJ > >> If it were based on the Larmor transformation, then it would be the >> Larmor Ether Theory, no? > > Not necessarily. <shrug> > >>> SR is based on the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle >>> of relativity, but LET is based on Larmor's transform which says >>> the absolute frame of reference must exist. Thus, SR and LET >>> cannot possibly have made the same claims. >> >> I did not say SR and LET make the same claims. I said something quite >> different. Please pay attention. > > You said SR and LET are indistinguishable. <shrug> > >>> SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's >>> transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of >>> relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of reference >>> must exist. They are mathematically different, and >>> experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> >> >> So give an example of an experiment that would distinguish the two. > > PD does not pay any attention. As Koobee Wublee has said, the necessary > experiment has to accelerate the experimental platform to high speed, and > that is still beyond today's technology. <shrug> Then propose something. For example, if you would imagine that something could be done entirely on an earth-bound laboratory, to what speeds relative to the ground would be required and what would be needed to made travel at that speed? If you imagine that this would take launching of a laboratory off the earth, then you can propose the equipment and the speed relative to the earth that would be needed. I thought that thinking through such proposals is how experimental physicists and engineers operate to do science. So what do you propose? > >>> Yes, Koobee Wublee knows the earth has a low absolute speed. >>> <shrug> >> >> And how do you know this? > > How do you know otherwise? <shrug> I'm not claiming any knowledge otherwise. You're the one claiming knowledge I'm not claiming to have, and so I'm asking you about the basis of your claim of knowledge. If you say you KNOW the earth has low absolute speed, then you can certainly provide the numerical upper limit of that absolute speed and the data from which you have deduced that upper limit. > >> What is the upper bound on the Earth's absolute speed and how has this >> been determined? > > A good hint is the CMBR dipole anisotropy. <shrug> I'm not looking for hints. You claim knowledge. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <QeGdnQrvcpqS0jfLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #374925 |
On 1/27/16 1/27/16 7:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 6:08 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >>> Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>> Yes, Koobee Wublee knows the earth has a low absolute speed. >>> And how do you know this? >> How do you know otherwise? <shrug> > > I'm not claiming any knowledge otherwise. The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". It is not highly relativistic, but many experiments have been performed using it as a relative velocity which can indeed distinguish relativistic predictions from Newtonian ones; in all cases relativity is confirmed and Newton refuted. Using any sensible meaning of "absolute speed", that 30 km/s is a lower bound on earth's "absolute speed", at least during some portion of its orbit. Earth is also moving at about 300 km/sec relative to the CMBR dipole=0 frame. This is a not unreasonable value for earth's "absolute speed". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8dkms$1kf0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375046 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> I'm not claiming any knowledge otherwise. > > The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". It > is not highly relativistic, but many experiments have been performed > using it as a relative velocity which can indeed distinguish > relativistic predictions from Newtonian ones; in all cases relativity is > confirmed and Newton refuted. This is incorrect, as due to earth's tangential speed, at equator, at noon, say 14:00 the orbital velocity of an observer would be 30.465 km/s. meanwhile On the opposite side in the middle of the night the speed must be 29.515 Km/sec. (tangential speed 465 meters /sec)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8dl72$1lbj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375048 |
Juan Sebastián wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> I'm not claiming any knowledge otherwise. >> >> The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". It >> is not highly relativistic, but many experiments have been performed >> using it as a relative velocity which can indeed distinguish >> relativistic predictions from Newtonian ones; in all cases relativity >> is confirmed and Newton refuted. > > This is incorrect, as due to earth's tangential speed, at equator, at > noon, say 14:00 the orbital velocity of an observer would be 30.465 > km/s. > meanwhile On the opposite side in the middle of the night the speed must > be 29.515 Km/sec. (tangential speed 465 meters /sec) What you need to understand is that when the night comes, you travel slower thorough the spacetime. This is why people also fall in sleep easer than it is, in the time of a workday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8dn6i$1o94$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375050 |
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:04:18 +0000, Juan Sebastián wrote: > Juan Sebastián wrote: > >> Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>>> I'm not claiming any knowledge otherwise. >>> >>> The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". It >>> is not highly relativistic, but many experiments have been performed >>> using it as a relative velocity which can indeed distinguish >>> relativistic predictions from Newtonian ones; in all cases relativity >>> is confirmed and Newton refuted. >> >> This is incorrect, as due to earth's tangential speed, at equator, at >> noon, say 14:00 the orbital velocity of an observer would be 30.465 >> km/s. >> meanwhile On the opposite side in the middle of the night the speed >> must be 29.515 Km/sec. (tangential speed 465 meters /sec) > > What you need to understand is that when the night comes, you travel > slower thorough the spacetime. This is why people also fall in sleep > easer than it is, in the time of a workday. HAHAHAHAHHAHA! Clever!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 11:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8fg1p$c2g$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #375048 |
On 28.01.2016 18:55, Juan Sebastián wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8fgb6$3uj$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375126 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 28.01.2016 18:55, Juan Sebastián wrote: > > [] > > It doesn't help to change your name, Fuck you, stupid bitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a326e9c6-ee3d-4190-86f1-5f75dc3240f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375046 |
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform, but LET is based on Larmor's > > transform. While the Lorentz transform satisfies the principle of > > relativity, Larmor's transform says the absolute frame of > > reference must exist. They are mathematically different, and > > experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shrug> > > > SR is based on the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle > > of relativity, but LET is based on Larmor's transform which says > > the absolute frame of reference must exist. Thus, SR and LET > > cannot possibly have made the same claims. > > > Only under a very special circumstance where the two observers are > > moving in parallel, Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms are > > indistinguishable. The self-styled physicists mostly know only > > this very special case. It is just ignorance. <shrug> > > > All experiments are done when the observers' absolute speeds are > > low, and at low observers' absolute speeds, all experiments are > > indistinguishable between SR and LET. According to the mathematics > > of SR and LET, only when the observers' absolute speeds become > > high, experimental result shall diverge between SR and LET. > The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". > It is not highly relativistic, but many experiments have been > performed using it as a relative velocity which can indeed > distinguish relativistic predictions from Newtonian ones; in all > cases relativity is confirmed and Newton refuted. Like what, Tom? Which planet or star has been observed to have relativistic effect that Newtonian result is refuted? <shrug> > Using any sensible meaning of "absolute speed", that 30 km/s is a > lower bound on earth's "absolute speed", at least during some > portion of its orbit. > > Earth is also moving at about 300 km/sec relative to the CMBR > dipole=0 frame. This is a not unreasonable value for earth's > "absolute speed". Yes, it is. Thank you, Tom. The gamma boost from this absolute speed is merely 1.000000005. That is orders of magnitude way too low to distinguish between the Lorentz and Larmor's transforms. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 13:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8dpqf$1t6h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375053 |
On 1/28/2016 12:31 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Yes, it is. Thank you, Tom. The gamma boost from this absolute speed is > merely 1.000000005. That is orders of magnitude way too low to distinguish > between the Lorentz and Larmor's transforms. <shrug> So you've pointed to a gamma that is different from one by 5 parts per billion. What's the relative difference between the Lorentz and Larmor transform in parts per billion. And are you saying that 5 parts per billion is immeasurable? Measurements of contaminants in liquids at ppb levels is pretty routine. Dogs have olfactory sensitivity at the parts per trillion; just their senses, no artificial measurements. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8dnbp$agf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375046 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:QeGdnQrvcpqS0jfLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. That is not "low". It is not |highly relativistic, but many experiments have been performed using it as a |relative velocity which can indeed distinguish relativistic predictions from |Newtonian ones; in all cases relativity is confirmed and Newton refuted. A lie. As expected from a stupid, lying, fanatic, relativistic moron Your Shit is confirmed no more, than Lorentz's ether, and Newton theory is refuted no more, than Lorentz's ether too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87svc$q9i$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374829 |
On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:07:07 AM, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >> >Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> > >They are mathematically different, and >>> > >experimentations ought to tell them apart. <shurg> >> > >> >So show that. Show that there is a measurable difference between the two >> >which can be put to experimental test. It's your claim, so back it up. > To accelerate an experimental platform to high speed is still beyond today's technological achievement. <shrug> > So Koobee, first you say that experiments ought to tell the Lorentz transformation and the Larmor transformation apart, and then you say that experiments to tell them apart can't be done. Can you please settle on what exactly you'd like to claim before opening your mouth? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web