Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400522 > unrolled thread
| Started by | paulymiller@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-01 15:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-19 11:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 93 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 12:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d414835-8d8a-4a95-a7c5-1c70a839a90c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401625 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. Moron....Galilean's inertial frame does not have constant light speed in all inertial frames. > > 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. So are you saying here that Einstein disavowed constant light speed in all inertial frames? I don't think so. Constant light speed in all inertial frames is a postulate of SR. Once Einstein endowed the inertial frame with all the exclusive properties of the aether then there is no need for him to mention the aether again. > > >> > 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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2ps3g$lfl$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401662 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >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. >Moron....Galilean's inertial frame does not have constant light speed in >all inertial frames. No, Stupid Ken. We are discussing who invented inertial frames, not the speed of light in inertial frames. >> 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. >So are you saying here that Einstein disavowed constant light speed in all >inertial frames? I don't think so. No, Stupid Ken. Einstein disavowed the aether, not constant light speed. We were discussing whether SR involved the aether, remember? >Constant light speed in all inertial frames is a postulate of SR. You finally got something correct for once, Stupid Ken. >Once Einstein endowed the inertial frame with all the exclusive properties >of the aether He never did that, Stupid Ken. He completely disavowed the aether, remember? Ken, how come you didn't answer the following? >> 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 >> >> 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. Still no answer? >> >> >> Odd seems to be right. You can't read English. Considering we were discussing the definition of inertial frames and who invented them, and how you went into discussing the speed of light instead, Odd is definitely correct. You can't read English.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 07:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a007ab79-1543-4743-9ea2-aa7fa5a227da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401688 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 5:18:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >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. > > >Moron....Galilean's inertial frame does not have constant light speed in > >all inertial frames. > > No, Stupid Ken. We are discussing who invented inertial frames, not the > speed of light in inertial frames. No moron....we are discussing the difference between Galilean's inertial frame and Einstein's inertial frame. > > >> 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. > > >So are you saying here that Einstein disavowed constant light speed in all > >inertial frames? I don't think so. > > No, Stupid Ken. Einstein disavowed the aether, not constant light speed. > We were discussing whether SR involved the aether, remember? Moron Einstein didn't disavowed the aether.....he renamed the aether frame as an inertial frame. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > >Constant light speed in all inertial frames is a postulate of SR. > > You finally got something correct for once, Stupid Ken. Moron....Einstein claimed the exclusive property of the aether frame. > > >Once Einstein endowed the inertial frame with all the exclusive properties > >of the aether > > He never did that, Stupid Ken. He completely disavowed the aether, remember? > > Ken, how come you didn't answer the following? No he didn't completely disavowed the aether.....he said that GR without the aether is unthinkable. > > >> 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 > > > > >> >> 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. > > Still no answer? Moron the inertial frame of SR is the inertial frame. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2klis$15tf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401293 |
On 12/10/2016 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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? No, I mean NOBODY cares. Look at your book sales. > 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. I don't care about your theory. I was talking about SR, not your theory. Nobody cares about your theory. Look at your book sales. > 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. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2l5fo$6s2$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401404 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/10/2016 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 9:32:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 12/4/2016 12:33 PM, kenseto 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: >>>> 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? >No, I mean NOBODY cares. Look at your book sales. Has *anyone* bought your book, Ken? Other than perhaps yourself, of course, so that you could "review" it.... Has anyone even downloaded it when you made it free? Oh, I think it was Odd who did so, and read it in an hour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 08:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2mcoc$1pel$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401434 |
On 12/11/2016 9:27 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > >> No, I mean NOBODY cares. Look at your book sales. > > Has *anyone* bought your book, Ken? Other than perhaps yourself, of > course, so that you could "review" it.... > > Has anyone even downloaded it when you made it free? Oh, I think it > was Odd who did so, and read it in an hour. > Two hours. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 06:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o20c4t$bf4$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #400602 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 03/12/16 01:27, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >Moron-y and his fellow conspirators shudder and close their eyes >whenever that quote of Einstein's appears. Ralph, why didn't you and Wozniak write the complete quote? If you did, you'd see how Einstein stated that this "aether" of his did not possess the properties associated with the traditional lumeriferous aether. He explicitly stated it doesn't have properties of motion. So his original statement eliminating the old lumeriferous aether with motion properties didn't apply to his SR work on motion. And neither would this new "aether", without properties of motion. > They say he must have been >drugged when he said it. No, Ralph, that's just the wet dream of the assorted anti-einstein kooks. > No wonder the Irish have been considered such a laughable >race over the centuries! Ralph Rabbidge, why do you make fun of your own ethnicity? You do know how "Rabbidge" is a fine name from the Emerald Isle, don't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b8d7cd0a-d7d1-4f4e-9de1-06780509a1a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400602 |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-8, 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. > > Moron-y and his fellow conspirators shudder and close their eyes > whenever that quote of Einstein's appears. They say he must have been > drugged when he said it. Moron-y has been posting to this NG for many > years and has never once put together an intelligible scientific > sentence. He is obviously a paid lackey of the Grand Conspiracy that is > intent on retaining the unworthy name 'Einstein' as the world's symbol > of genius. No wonder the Irish have been considered such a laughable > race over the centuries! > > Einstein was a devious opportunist who merely plagiarized the theories > of Lorentz and Poincare. His second postulate fundamentally relies on > their 'aether' to achieve the source independence of light speed. > There has never been even ONE believable experiment that supports his > funny little theory. Nothing funnier than seeing two crackpots congratulating one another and getting sentimental over how stupid everyone is. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2pqsm$lfl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401655 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 03/12/16 01:27, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: ... >Nothing funnier than seeing two crackpots congratulating one another and >getting sentimental over how stupid everyone is. yeah, I am always entertained by a good k00kfight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 01:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdf1d351-7484-498c-9cb4-f52d2cdd0cca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401683 |
W dniu wtorek, 13 grudnia 2016 22:57:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> On 03/12/16 01:27, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > ... > > >Nothing funnier than seeing two crackpots congratulating one another and > >getting sentimental over how stupid everyone is. > > yeah, I am always entertained by a good k00kfight. Nothing funnier than seeing two crackpots congratulating one another and getting sentimental over how stupid everyone is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ba274ce-3dd8-4476-8b44-76b5aea89174@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400522 |
W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 00:54:06 UTC+1 użytkownik pauly...@gmail.com napisał: > Hi all, > > for some reason, this group came to my mind recently - I was last on here about 10 years ago, challenging someone to place a bet on the outcome of a replication of the Michelson-Morley experiment. I wanted to see if they were so sure SR was wrong that they would put up hard cash. Long time ago now. > > Anyway, I am utterly staggered to find that, not only do I recognise some of the names of the anti SR-arians, or whatever you call yourselves, but you still don't understand SR!! You've just spent 10 years of your lives arguing against a theory that 1) you don't understand, and 2) is undergrad level physics! Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you could have spent some of that 10 years in actually learning something? > > Anyway, here's to the next 10 years guys!! Indeed. You nothing learned, nor understud by the last 10 years; so, probably you never learn, reach... more than the undergrad level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1dbdf51f-5600-4497-88ec-7abe4fc42f31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400522 |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+1, pauly...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > for some reason, this group came to my mind recently - I was last on here about 10 years ago, challenging someone to place a bet on the outcome of a replication of the Michelson-Morley experiment. I wanted to see if they were so sure SR was wrong that they would put up hard cash. Long time ago now. > > Anyway, I am utterly staggered to find that, not only do I recognise some of the names of the anti SR-arians, or whatever you call yourselves, but you still don't understand SR!! You've just spent 10 years of your lives arguing against a theory that 1) you don't understand, and 2) is undergrad level physics! Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you could have spent some of that 10 years in actually learning something? > > Anyway, here's to the next 10 years guys!! Politics aside, I think it's just not explained properly. I too have struggled with it, and it is certainly not a trivial theory, and it is really counter- productive to expect that a student just swallows it without playing with it, even challenge it: of course with due consideration. Anyway, at least for me, it was eventually a matter of drawing few more diagrams, few more than usually drawn. That said, and given current trends, I am pretty convinced the guy, Einstein, will be fully vindicated: I'd bet, there is no other way to quantum gravity... Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65642c65-f545-4422-a351-395bc48a14da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400522 |
"On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).
Relativity: Special and General Theory (1917).
_________________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________________
TO stinky micky.
There are two possibilities. One is that you have your head up your arse or you have your head up someone else arse. Hopefully, it's someone cute that you like but still it's stinky.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web