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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400522 > unrolled thread

Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life

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

Contents

  Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life paulymiller@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 15:54 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life patdolan@comcast.net - 2016-12-01 17:43 -0800
      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:25 -0600
      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:35 -0600
        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 19:36 -0500
          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-03 13:14 +0100
          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:29 -0600
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-12-02 08:59 +0100
      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-02 00:25 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-02 00:35 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-02 21:01 +1100
      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 13:33 +0000
        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-02 06:27 -0800
          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 06:41 -0800
          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 05:16 +1100
            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:25 -0600
              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:30 -0600
              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 03:10 -0800
              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 10:33 -0800
                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 15:43 -0800
                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-10 09:42 -0800
                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-11 02:28 +0000
                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 19:03 -0800
                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 06:38 -0800
                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-11 07:25 -0800
                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-11 16:47 +0000
                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 11:51 -0800
                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 03:14 +0000
                              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-12 06:03 -0800
                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 08:48 -0600
                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 16:18 +0100
                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:37 -0800
                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-13 22:01 +0000
                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-14 00:40 -0800
                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-14 06:51 -0800
                                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 18:45 -0800
                                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-17 07:04 -0800
                                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:44 +0000
                                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-17 10:58 -0800
                                              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 19:03 +0000
                                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-18 06:20 -0800
                                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 07:53 -0800
                                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Jacquelyn Schiffer <euefhqheeoeeSfaJn@euefhqhee.eeSfaJn.eue> - 2016-12-21 19:52 +0000
                                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-21 12:00 -0800
                                              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-18 01:57 +0000
                                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-18 06:30 -0800
                                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:08 +0000
                                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 23:10 -0800
                                                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 03:33 -0800
                                                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 04:08 -0800
                                                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 06:58 -0800
                                                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 08:22 -0800
                                                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 16:38 +0000
                                                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 09:04 -0800
                                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 09:46 -0600
                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 17:55 +0000
                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-12 11:34 -0800
                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-11 19:21 -0800
                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 16:23 -0800
                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:32 -0600
                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 07:03 -0800
                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-10 09:39 -0800
                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Estrella Batey <yeaetl@sryeaet.org> - 2016-12-10 18:43 +0000
                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 11:24 -0800
                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 19:27 +0000
                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-16 12:24 -0800
                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-11 02:52 +0000
                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 06:52 -0800
                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-11 16:56 +0000
                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 11:34 -0800
                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 08:20 -0600
                              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-12 07:37 -0800
                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 10:30 -0600
                                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 18:00 +0000
                                  Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-12 11:49 -0800
                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 12:09 -0800
                                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-13 05:33 -0800
                                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-13 13:09 +0000
                                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-13 05:47 -0800
                                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-13 15:51 +0000
                                          Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-13 12:20 -0800
                                            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-13 22:18 +0000
                                              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-14 07:01 -0800
                    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 16:56 -0600
                      Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 03:27 +0000
                        Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 08:38 -0600
            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 06:12 +0000
            Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:35 -0800
              Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-13 21:57 +0000
                Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-14 01:32 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 12:03 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-12-17 07:50 -0800
    Re: Logic, reasoning and SR: how to waste 10 years of your life numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 11:22 -0800

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

#400850

Odd Bodkin

Whether you agree with Einstein or not is not really of interest. Nobody 
really cares what you think. 

What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true. 
When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is a 
factually untrue statement. 

Can you provide a detailed description of your concept of the make up of the vacuum of spacetime ?

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

#401293

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:32:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/4/2016 12:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 1:25:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2016 12:16 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >>> On 03/12/16 01:27, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>> W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 14:33:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael
> >>>> Moroney napisał:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, here's to the next 10 years guys!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Idiot troll! Of course we understand it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, Ralph, you are definitely one of those who do not understand SR
> >>>>> even after 10+ years. For one example, you keep insisting that SR
> >>>>> involves an aether even though Einstein explicitly disavowed the
> >>>>> aether, he didn't use it, and you yourself just showed it's not
> >>>>> needed for constant c
> >>>>
> >>>> Samely, you are. For instance, you keep insisting this shit is a
> >>>> consequence of experiments. And about ether and your idiot guru, he
> >>>> said:
> >>>>
> >>>> Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
> >>>> relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> >>>> therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
> >>>> relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
> >>>> there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
> >>>> possibility of existence for standards of space and time
> >>>> (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
> >>>> in the physical sense.
> >>
> >> Which was followed in the SAME PARAGRAPH by the following:
> >> " But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> >> characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be
> >> tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
> >
> > Einstein is wrong.....the aether is stationary and every object in our
> > universe are moving within it. This is shown in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
> 
> Whether you agree with Einstein or not is not really of interest. Nobody 
> really cares what you think.

So you don't care means nobody cares? I don't think so.....although it is true that you are a nobody and all your posts are free of content.

> 
> What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true.
> When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is a 
> factually untrue statement.

Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I said my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR does not claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an inertial frame does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math.

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

#401295

kenseto wrote:

>> What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true.
>> When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is
>> a factually untrue statement.
> 
> Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I
> said my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR
> does not claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an
> inertial frame does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether
> frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math.

Excellent observation. They are preaching an SR without Aether just 
because to make it different and Independent from LET. Hahahahaaa. Very 
good Observation indeed. There is no other reason. 

consequently, we have reason to believe, that the Independence is the only 
reason.

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

#401300

W dniu sobota, 10 grudnia 2016 19:43:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Estrella Batey napisał:
> kenseto wrote:
> 
> >> What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true.
> >> When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is
> >> a factually untrue statement.
> > 
> > Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I
> > said my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR
> > does not claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an
> > inertial frame does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether
> > frame. That's why SR and LET have the same math.
> 
> Excellent observation. They are preaching an SR without Aether just 
> because to make it different and Independent from LET. Hahahahaaa. Very 
> good Observation indeed. There is no other reason. 
> 
> consequently, we have reason to believe, that the Independence is the only 
> reason.

That's is wrong.

The LET has other math than the SR too.

For example - the Fizeau experiment:

The speed of light in a moving medium according to to the LET is:
c'(0) = c/n + v / 1 + v/nc =~ c/n + v(1-1/n^2)
and it's just the real speed not any illusion.

But in the SR it's still: c/n,
because the lightspeed must be and is fully anisortopic in the SR,
and in any media.
 
So, only for perpendicular direction the lightspeed is the same:
c'(90) = ~c/n, for LET and for SR the same.

Therefore even one simple experiment can destroy the SR completely:
namele any MM-type experiment, but within a medium, where n <> 1.

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

#402049

alsor wrote:

>> Excellent observation. They are preaching an SR without Aether just
>> because to make it different and Independent from LET. Hahahahaaa. Very
>> good Observation indeed. There is no other reason. consequently, we
>> have reason to believe, that the Independence is the only reason.
> 
> That's is wrong. The LET has other math than the SR too. For example -
> the Fizeau experiment: 
> The speed of light in a moving medium according to to the LET is:
> c'(0) = c/n + v / 1 + v/nc =~ c/n + v(1-1/n^2)
> and it's just the real speed not any illusion.

Not even wrong.

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

#402057

W dniu piątek, 16 grudnia 2016 20:27:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Lauretta Nagle napisał:
> alsor wrote:
> 
> >> Excellent observation. They are preaching an SR without Aether just
> >> because to make it different and Independent from LET. Hahahahaaa. Very
> >> good Observation indeed. There is no other reason. consequently, we
> >> have reason to believe, that the Independence is the only reason.
> > 
> > That's is wrong. The LET has other math than the SR too. For example -
> > the Fizeau experiment: 
> > The speed of light in a moving medium according to to the LET is:
> > c'(0) = c/n + v / 1 + v/nc =~ c/n + v(1-1/n^2)
> > and it's just the real speed not any illusion.
> 
> Not even wrong.

Wrong: not still wrong.

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

#401332

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:32:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/4/2016 12:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 1:25:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> > Einstein is wrong.....the aether is stationary and every object in our
>> > universe are moving within it. This is shown in the following link:

>> Whether you agree with Einstein or not is not really of interest. Nobody
>> really cares what you think.

>So you don't care means nobody cares? I don't think so.....although it 
>is true that you are a nobody and all your posts are free of content.

It is rather unlikely anyone would care what yet another ignorant crank
in a newsgroup full of ignorant cranks thinks.  Well, perhaps a researcher 
in abnormal psychology may care.

Of course you could prove to us how many people care what you think by
showing us your book's sales figures.... I won't hold my breath.

>> What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true.
>> When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is a
>> factually untrue statement.

>Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I said
> my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR does not
>claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an inertial frame
>does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether frame. That's why SR 
>and LET have the same math.

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. First you imply relativity
doesn't depend on an aether. But then you claim that inertial frames
depend on the properties of the aether.

That's OK. We all know that inertial frames claiming exclusive properties 
of the aether frame is just hogwash.

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

#401366

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:52:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:32:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2016 12:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 1:25:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> > Einstein is wrong.....the aether is stationary and every object in our
> >> > universe are moving within it. This is shown in the following link:
> 
> >> Whether you agree with Einstein or not is not really of interest. Nobody
> >> really cares what you think.
> 
> >So you don't care means nobody cares? I don't think so.....although it 
> >is true that you are a nobody and all your posts are free of content.
> 
> It is rather unlikely anyone would care what yet another ignorant crank
> in a newsgroup full of ignorant cranks thinks.  Well, perhaps a researcher 
> in abnormal psychology may care.
> 
> Of course you could prove to us how many people care what you think by
> showing us your book's sales figures.... I won't hold my breath.
> 
> >> What matters is whether what you say about relativity is actually true.
> >> When you say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether, that is a
> >> factually untrue statement.
> 
> >Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I said
> > my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR does not
> >claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an inertial frame
> >does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether frame. That's why SR 
> >and LET have the same math.
> 
> You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. First you imply relativdity
> doesn't depend on an aether. But then you claim that inertial frames
> depend on the properties of the aether.

No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous. Then he, turn around, and invented the inertial frame for SR to derive the SR math. The inertial frame have all the exclusive properties of the aether frame as follows:
1. The laws of physics are the same in every location of the stationary aether.
2. The speed of light is isotropic c in every location of the stationary aether. 

> 
> That's OK. We all know that inertial frames claiming exclusive properties 
> of the aether frame is just hogwash.

The hogwash is on your part.

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

#401375

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:52:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I said
>> > my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR does not
>> >claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an inertial frame
>> >does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether frame. That's why SR
>> >and LET have the same math.

>> You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. First you imply relativity
>> doesn't depend on an aether. But then you claim that inertial frames
>> depend on the properties of the aether.

>No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. Einstein
>said that the need for an aether is superfluous. Then he, turn around,
>and invented the inertial frame for SR to derive the SR math. The inertial
>frame have all the exclusive properties of the aether frame as follows:

OK so you don't imply relativity doesn't depend on an aether.  You explicitly
claimed relativity didn't depend on an aether.  But you still contradicted
yourself when you falsely claim relativity depends on an aether.

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

#401386

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:56:20 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:52:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >Idiot I didn't say that relativity depended on a luminiferous ether. I said
> >> > my theory is based on the ether called the E-Matrix. Although SR does not
> >> >claim the existence of an ether.....but the assertion of an inertial frame
> >> >does claim all the exclusive properties of the ether frame. That's why SR
> >> >and LET have the same math.
> 
> >> You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. First you imply relativity
> >> doesn't depend on an aether. But then you claim that inertial frames
> >> depend on the properties of the aether.
> 
> >No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. Einstein
> >said that the need for an aether is superfluous. iron like you.  he, turn around,
> >and invented the inertial frame for SR to derive the SR math. The inertial
> >frame have all the exclusive properties of the aether frame as follows:
> 
> OK so you don't imply relativity doesn't depend on an aether.  You explicitly
> claimed relativity didn't depend on an aether.  But you still contradicted
> yourself when you falsely claim relativity depends on an aether.

It's a waste of time talking to a moron like you. I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous. 

Also I said that even though Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous but he turn around and invented the inertial frame which has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame to derive the SR math.

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

#401475

On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
> the need for an aether is superfluous.

Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
why you don't read books.

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

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

#401485

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
> > the need for an aether is superfluous.
> 
> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
> why you don't read books.

Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether and I never make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an aether is superfluous. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

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

#401491

On 12/12/2016 9:37 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
>>> the need for an aether is superfluous.
>>
>> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is
>> why you don't read books.
>
> Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether and I never
> make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an aether is superfluous.
> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>

As I said, you cannot read the English language.


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

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

#401506

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
>> > the need for an aether is superfluous.
>> 
>> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
>> why you don't read books.

>Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether
>and I never make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an
>aether is superfluous. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Saying SR didn't depend on an aether and the need for an aether is
superfluous is saying the same thing.

Odd seems to be right. You can't read English.

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

#401521

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> > I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
> >> > the need for an aether is superfluous.
> >> 
> >> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
> >> why you don't read books.
> 
> >Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether
> >and I never make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an
> >aether is superfluous. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> 
> Saying SR didn't depend on an aether

Moron.... you claimed that I made that claim is wrong. I claimed the opposite that SR needs an aether. What I said: the inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.

>and the need for an aether is
> superfluous is saying the same thing.




> 
> Odd seems to be right. You can't read English.

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

#401526

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 12:49:50 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > 
> > Saying SR didn't depend on an aether
> 
> What I said: the inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims
> all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.

But SR has an infinite number of inertial frames, so they all can't be
your stupid aether frame.  Gee you are stupid.

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

#401615

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 3:09:31 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 12:49:50 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > > 
> > > Saying SR didn't depend on an aether
> > 
> > What I said: the inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims
> > all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
> 
> But SR has an infinite number of inertial frames, so they all can't be
> your stupid aether frame.  Gee you are stupid.

Moron .....the stationary aether has an infinite number of locations that correspond to the infinite number of inertial frames. Gee you are stupid.

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

#401612

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> >> > I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
>> >> > the need for an aether is superfluous.
>> >> 
>> >> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
>> >> why you don't read books.
>> 
>> >Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether
>> >and I never make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an
>> >aether is superfluous. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> 
>> Saying SR didn't depend on an aether

>Moron.... you claimed that I made that claim is wrong.

Stupid Ken, you wrote in Message-ID: <ccb618d6-68df-4fe0-960d-9c1674e07f4f@googlegroups.com>

: No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. 
: Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous.

So you admit that SR, as written by one A. Einstein, doesn't depend on
an aether, since he said as part of it the aether is superfluous.

> I claimed the opposite that SR needs an aether. What I said: the 
> inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims all the 
> exclusive properties of the aether frame.

To clarify, it is not SR that needs an aether. You even admit Einstein
said so.  It's that huge misunderstanding of SR in your head, which you
call SR, but is not SR, that needs an aether.

So, to avoid confusion, you need to write from now on: "This massive
misunderstanding of SR, which I, Ken Seto, mistakenly call SR, needs an
aether because of some alleged properties of the aether frame."

Just remember, that theory that claims the alleged exclusive properties of
the aether frame is not SR. It's that mess in your head which you call SR,
but is not SR.  As you know, it cannot be SR because in SR, there are an
infinite number of inertial frames, all moving with respect to each other,
but "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" means just one frame.  
How could an infinite number of frames, all moving with respect to each
other, all claim "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" yet have
DIFFERENT properties (velocity, position)?

Oh, just for giggles, show us where Einstein claims the inertial frames
"claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame"...

>> Odd seems to be right. You can't read English.

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

#401617

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:09:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 9:20:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> >> On 12/11/2016 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >> > I never said that SR didn't depend on an aether......I said that Einstein said that
> >> >> > the need for an aether is superfluous.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Those mean the same thing. You cannot read the English language. This is 
> >> >> why you don't read books.
> >> 
> >> >Hey moron.....Moron-y claimed that I said that SR didn't depend on an aether
> >> >and I never make such claim. I repeated what Einstein said: the need for an
> >> >aether is superfluous. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >> 
> >> Saying SR didn't depend on an aether
> 
> >Moron.... you claimed that I made that claim is wrong.
> 
> Stupid Ken, you wrote in Message-ID: <ccb618d6-68df-4fe0-960d-9c1674e07f4f@googlegroups.com>
> 
> : No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. 
> : Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous.
> 
> So you admit that SR, as written by one A. Einstein, doesn't depend on
> an aether, since he said as part of it the aether is superfluous.

Sigh....the point is that Einstein is deviously wrong.....after he declared that the need for an aether is superfluous he then invented the inertial frame and gave it all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.

> 
> > I claimed the opposite that SR needs an aether. What I said: the 
> > inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims all the 
> > exclusive properties of the aether frame.
> 
> To clarify, it is not SR that needs an aether. You even admit Einstein
> said so.  It's that huge misunderstanding of SR in your head, which you
> call SR, but is not SR, that needs an aether.

There is no misunderstanding.....the inertial frame of SR is the aether frame. Ge you are stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y.
> 
> So, to avoid confusion, you need to write from now on: "This massive
> misunderstanding of SR, which I, Ken Seto, mistakenly call SR, needs an
> aether because of some alleged properties of the aether frame."
> 
> Just remember, that theory that claims the alleged exclusive properties of
> the aether frame is not SR. It's that mess in your head which you call SR,
> but is not SR.  As you know, it cannot be SR because in SR, there are an
> infinite number of inertial frames, all moving with respect to each other,
> but "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" means just one frame.  
> How could an infinite number of frames, all moving with respect to each
> other, all claim "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" yet have
> DIFFERENT properties (velocity, position)?
> 
> Oh, just for giggles, show us where Einstein claims the inertial frames
> "claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame"...
> 
> >> Odd seems to be right. You can't read English.

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

#401625

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:09:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> Stupid Ken, you wrote in Message-ID: <ccb618d6-68df-4fe0-960d-9c1674e07f4f@googlegroups.com>
>> 
>> : No moron, I didn't imply that relativity doesn't depend on an aether. 
>> : Einstein said that the need for an aether is superfluous.
>> 
>> So you admit that SR, as written by one A. Einstein, doesn't depend on
>> an aether, since he said as part of it the aether is superfluous.

>Sigh....the point is that Einstein is deviously wrong.....after he declared
>that the need for an aether is superfluous he then invented the inertial
>frame and gave it all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.

No, Stupid Ken. The inertial frame was invented by Galileo, hundreds
of years ago, not by Einstein.

And he couldn't give the previously defined inertial frames any property
of something he disavowed. You will notice that once he states he won't
use any aether, there is no further mention of any aether.

>> > I claimed the opposite that SR needs an aether. What I said: the 
>> > inertial frame of SR is the aether frame because it claims all the 
>> > exclusive properties of the aether frame.
>> 
>> To clarify, it is not SR that needs an aether. You even admit Einstein
>> said so.  It's that huge misunderstanding of SR in your head, which you
>> call SR, but is not SR, that needs an aether.

>There is no misunderstanding.....

Yes, there is.  You attribute to Einstein something that was invented
centuries earlier, and that he did not claim to invent.  Plus he
disavows the aether and doesn't use it further, making your claim
that he gave the intertial frames all the exclusive properties of the
aether frame totally false.

Tell us, how an infinite number of inertial frames, each moving with an
infinite number of different velocities with respect to each other, can
each have the *exclusive* properties of the aether frame? Can't be very
"exclusive" if an infinite number of frames all have its properties...
Not to mention impossible, since these infinite inertial frames all have
different properties from each other.

>the inertial frame of SR is the aether frame.

See? There you go again, misunderstanding SR.  There isn't "the inertial
frame", there are infinitely many inertial frames, all moving relative
to each other, all with different velocities.  No wonder they call you
Stupid Ken.

>> So, to avoid confusion, you need to write from now on: "This massive
>> misunderstanding of SR, which I, Ken Seto, mistakenly call SR, needs an
>> aether because of some alleged properties of the aether frame."
>> 
>> Just remember, that theory that claims the alleged exclusive properties of
>> the aether frame is not SR. It's that mess in your head which you call SR,
>> but is not SR.  As you know, it cannot be SR because in SR, there are an
>> infinite number of inertial frames, all moving with respect to each other,
>> but "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" means just one frame.  
>> How could an infinite number of frames, all moving with respect to each
>> other, all claim "the exclusive properties of the aether frame" yet have
>> DIFFERENT properties (velocity, position)?
>> 
>> Oh, just for giggles, show us where Einstein claims the inertial frames
>> "claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame"...

No answer? I wonder why.

>> >> Odd seems to be right. You can't read English.
>

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

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

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

csiph-web