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 | 20 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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 09:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9978f5a-ae4e-4b3b-b503-9662e91363cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400798 |
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > Einstein is wrong > > Nope. Seto is wronger than wrong. > > > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving > > within it. > > You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the > property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. > > > This is shown in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > That's nothing but baloney. > > “Your manuscript is both good and original. However, that which is good > is not original, and that which is original is not good.” -- Samuel Johnson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 02:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2idkc$g9b$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401294 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving >> > within it. >> You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the >> property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. You state the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). Being stationary is a property of motion, so that means your model mechanics conflicts with Einstein and SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 19:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ddad02e6-05d7-4179-9210-13e31300f965@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401330 |
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving > > > > within it. > > > > You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the > > > property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. > > > Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object > > in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. > > Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. You state > the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). Being stationary > is a property of motion, so that means your model mechanics conflicts > with Einstein and SR. Gee Seto is a stupid idiot :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 06:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1376f520-be52-41aa-a9f8-9b499ae82160@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401330 |
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > >> > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving > >> > within it. > > >> You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the > >> property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. > > >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object > >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. > > Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. >You state > the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). with respect to all the objects moving within it. >Being stationary > is a property of motion, so that means your model mechanics conflicts > with Einstein and SR. No.....it means that SR is a subset of IRT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 07:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <435d876e-c0b9-4160-a97a-12d370d8b6c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401365 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 7:38:23 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. > > So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. What Einstein meant was that NOTHING has a velocity wrt the aether. > > You state the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). > > with respect to all the objects moving within it. But it doesn't. > > Being stationary is a property of motion, so that means your model > > mechanics conflicts with Einstein and SR. > > No.....it means that SR is a subset of IRT. NO! It means that IRT is Ignorant Raving Thoughtlessness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2jvvc$f7n$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401365 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving >> >> > within it. >> >> >> You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the >> >> property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. >> >> >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object >> >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. >> >> Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. >So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. But the aether does not have the properties of motion. Einstein didn't say objects don't have the property of motion, he said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. >>You state >> the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). >with respect to all the objects moving within it. All the objects within it are moving in it, so you claim. That means that to a particular object X, the aether is moving with respect to X, not stationary with respect to it. X is stationary with respect to X. Remember, motion is relative. Repeat for every object in the universe, and the aether is moving in respect to every object in the universe (since you claim no object is stationary wrt to the aether). Flunk. >>Being stationary >> is a property of motion, so that means your model mechanics conflicts >> with Einstein and SR. >No.....it means that SR is a subset of IRT. Nope. If SR was a subset of IRT, that means that IRT accepts as valid everything SR states, but has additional statements that SR is silent about. For example, SR is a valid subset of GR, because GR agrees perfectly with SR in the absense of gravity (the only time SR is valid, when gravity is absent or too small to affect the result). Meanwhile GR states what happens when there is gravity, where SR is silent (since it doesn't apply). Meanwhile IRT doesn't agree with SR, so it is impossible for SR to be a subset of IRT. Which is all well and good, given how IRT is such a complete failure anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 11:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0fd33cd-eb36-40b0-9ff0-78889d1fe536@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401374 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:47:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:43:29 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> >> > ....the aether is stationary and every object in our universe are moving > >> >> > within it. > >> > >> >> You don't know anything about the aether because it doesn't have the > >> >> property of motion. Einstein was RIGHT about that. > >> > >> >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object > >> >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. > > >So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. > > But the aether does not have the properties of motion. Einstein didn't > say objects don't have the property of motion, he said the aether doesn't > have the property of motion. Fucking idiot the aether is not moving.....the objects within it are moving. > >>You state > >> the aether is stationary (with respect to what?). > > >with respect to all the objects moving within it. > > All the objects within it are moving in it, so you claim. That's the assumptions of my theory. >That means that > to a particular object X, the aether is moving with respect to X, not > stationary with respect to it. X is stationary with respect to X. Fucking idiot.....X is moving within the stationary aether and that motion of X is its absolute motion. > Remember, > motion is relative. Relative motion is that motion between two objects moving in the stationary aether. Also relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the line joining them. > Repeat for every object in the universe, and the aether is moving in respect > to every object in the universe (since you claim no object is stationary > wrt to the aether). No moron.....the aether is not moving. Every object within it is in a state of absolute motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2l4mf$6s2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401387 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:47:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object >> >> >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. >> >> >> >> Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. >> >> >So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. >> >> But the aether does not have the properties of motion. Einstein didn't >> say objects don't have the property of motion, he said the aether doesn't >> have the property of motion. >Fucking idiot Yes, you are. >the aether is not moving..... "Not Moving" is a property of motion. Stating the aether isn't moving is in conflict with Einstein's statement that the aether does not have the properties of motion. Not having the property of motion does not mean the motion is 0. It means it just doesn't make sense to describe motion relative to it. It's like discussing the property of motion of the color green. The color green does not have the property of motion. It doesn't make sense to discuss the motion of green. >>That means that >> to a particular object X, the aether is moving with respect to X, not >> stationary with respect to it. X is stationary with respect to X. >Fucking idiot..... Yes, you still are. >X is moving within the stationary aether Which means that to X, the aether is moving. Motion is relative. >> Remember, >> motion is relative. >> Repeat for every object in the universe, and the aether is moving in respect >> to every object in the universe (since you claim no object is stationary >> wrt to the aether). >No moron.....the aether is not moving. To X it is. If X is moving relative to the aether, that obviously means the aether is moving relative to X, in the opposite direction. Only X itself or an object comoving with X is stationary to X. That excludes your aether. Now repeat for every particle in the universe. If every particle in the universe is moving with respect to the aether (which is your claim), that means the aether is moving with respect to every particle in the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 06:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <369521c3-6630-4866-a635-8882851b5652@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401431 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 10:14:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:47:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> >Idiot I didn't say that the ether has motion. I said that every object > >> >> >in our universe is moving in a stationary ether. Gee you are stupid. > >> >> > >> >> Einstein said the aether doesn't have the property of motion. > >> > >> >So??? But the objects, within the aether, have motions. > >> > >> But the aether does not have the properties of motion. Einstein didn't > >> say objects don't have the property of motion, he said the aether doesn't > >> have the property of motion. > > >Fucking idiot > > Yes, you are. > > >the aether is not moving..... > > "Not Moving" is a property of motion. Stating the aether isn't moving is > in conflict with Einstein's statement that the aether does not have the > properties of motion. Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute motions for all the objects moving within it. > > Not having the property of motion does not mean the motion is 0. It means > it just doesn't make sense to describe motion relative to it. It's like > discussing the property of motion of the color green. The color green > does not have the property of motion. It doesn't make sense to discuss > the motion of green. > > >>That means that > >> to a particular object X, the aether is moving with respect to X, not > >> stationary with respect to it. X is stationary with respect to X. > > >Fucking idiot..... > > Yes, you still are. > > >X is moving within the stationary aether > > Which means that to X, the aether is moving. Motion is relative. > > >> Remember, > >> motion is relative. > > >> Repeat for every object in the universe, and the aether is moving in respect > >> to every object in the universe (since you claim no object is stationary > >> wrt to the aether). > > >No moron.....the aether is not moving. > > To X it is. If X is moving relative to the aether, that obviously means > the aether is moving relative to X, in the opposite direction. Only X > itself or an object comoving with X is stationary to X. That excludes your > aether. > > Now repeat for every particle in the universe. If every particle in > the universe is moving with respect to the aether (which is your claim), > that means the aether is moving with respect to every particle in the > universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 08:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2mdc0$1qcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401473 |
On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't know what he said. We all know what's going on, Ken. You're not happy with your life or your legacy, and you want to say something about physics and be recognized for it, whether you know what you're talking about or not. And if it means elbowing people like Einstein out of the way, you're happy to do that. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mf1o$r0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #401480 |
On 12/12/2016 03:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I >> invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute >> motions for all the objects moving within it.\ > > What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't > know what he said. What reminds an old joke: ( I guess from "The fiddler on the roof", but not sure. ) "What does your father say about your intention to get married ?" "He does not know it yet." "And your mother ?" "She is waiting for my father to be against him." -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d116d296-e5e0-4c8d-a9c5-4fd1647565fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401480 |
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I > > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute > > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ > > What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't > know what he said. And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, he won't be able to answer it. And yet here he is "criticising" relativity. Complete intellectual dishonesty. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2pr39$lfl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401656 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: >On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I >> > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute >> > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ >> >> What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't >> know what he said. >And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, >he won't be able to answer it. And yet here he is "criticising" relativity. >Complete intellectual dishonesty. We've already shown that. Ken can't even calculate the value of (-6)/(-2), much less handle technical physics questions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 00:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9578d78c-0511-42b0-9a4a-d48e658d1697@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401656 |
W dniu wtorek, 13 grudnia 2016 20:37:24 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, Your moronic mumble has nothing in common with anything technical. Listen to engineers, "technical" is their term...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 06:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f52831a-9e2a-4322-aa45-9e16591a919c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401656 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I > > > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute > > > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ > > > > What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't > > know what he said. > > And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, > he won't be able to answer it. And yet here he is "criticising" relativity. > Complete intellectual dishonesty. Idiot....Einstein was wrong because of the following reasons: 1. Constant speed of light in all inertial frame even though there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) in all frames....a clock second between inertial frames does not represent the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.. 2. Material length contraction never been observed.....The LT equation for length contraction can be reinterpreted as the light-path length of a meter stick foreshortening. Go learn some real physics before you try to mock me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 18:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab4628b2-c32c-464c-ab37-6a1dff7bfdb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401776 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I > > > > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute > > > > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ > > > > > > What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't > > > know what he said. > > > > And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, > > he won't be able to answer it. And yet here he is "criticising" relativity. > > Complete intellectual dishonesty. > > Idiot....Einstein was wrong because of the following reasons: > 1. Constant speed of light in all inertial frame even though there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) in all frames....a clock second between inertial frames does not represent the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.. > 2. Material length contraction never been observed.....The LT equation for length contraction can be reinterpreted as the light-path length of a meter stick foreshortening. > > Go learn some real physics before you try to mock me. Both 1 and 2 are not even wrong. Why are you wasting your life on this? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c96323a-7790-4728-bbb3-c40f78ab9ef3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402094 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 12/12/2016 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Who gives a shit what Einstein said.....he is wrong and that's why I > > > > > invented Model Mechanics. The aether serves as reference for absolute > > > > > motions for all the objects moving within it.\ > > > > > > > > What's funny is you saying Einstein was wrong, even though you don't > > > > know what he said. > > > > > > And I bet if we asked Ken a simple technical question about physics, > > > he won't be able to answer it. And yet here he is "criticising" relativity. > > > Complete intellectual dishonesty. > > > > Idiot....Einstein was wrong because of the following reasons: > > 1. Constant speed of light in all inertial frame even though there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) in all frames....a clock second between inertial frames does not represent the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.. > > 2. Material length contraction never been observed.....The LT equation for length contraction can be reinterpreted as the light-path length of a meter stick foreshortening. > > > > Go learn some real physics before you try to mock me. > > Both 1 and 2 are not even wrong. Why are you wasting your life on this? So you don't know what "not even wrong" mean"? Go figure!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o33q0j$ffe$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402115 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >> > Idiot....Einstein was wrong because of the following reasons: >> > 1. Constant speed of light in all inertial frame even though there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) in all frames....a clock second between inertial frames does not represent the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.. >> > 2. Material length contraction never been observed.....The LT equation for length contraction can be reinterpreted as the light-path length of a meter stick foreshortening. >> > >> > Go learn some real physics before you try to mock me. >> >> Both 1 and 2 are not even wrong. Why are you wasting your life on this? >So you don't know what "not even wrong" mean"? Go figure! Stupid Ken, "not even wrong" means a concept so absurd/ridiculous that right/wrong doesn't express the absurdity correctly. For example, you claim the aether is stationary. Saying that is wrong implicitly states that the aether could be moving or something. But Einstein stated the aether cannot have the properties of motion. Therefore saying the aether is stationary is "not even wrong" because the entire property (motion) doesn't even apply to it, not that the value of the property (zero) is wrong. It's like stating that green is stationary. Not even wrong, the concept of motion cannot be applied to the color green, even if you can give the property of motion to green objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 10:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <737ac24f-0864-43a5-85e7-b683beb71b45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402127 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:51:40 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >> > Idiot....Einstein was wrong because of the following reasons: > >> > 1. Constant speed of light in all inertial frame even though there is no universal interval of clock time (including a clock second) in all frames....a clock second between inertial frames does not represent the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.. > >> > 2. Material length contraction never been observed.....The LT equation for length contraction can be reinterpreted as the light-path length of a meter stick foreshortening. > >> > > >> > Go learn some real physics before you try to mock me. > >> > >> Both 1 and 2 are not even wrong. Why are you wasting your life on this? > > >So you don't know what "not even wrong" mean"? Go figure! > > Stupid Ken, "not even wrong" means a concept so absurd/ridiculous that > right/wrong doesn't express the absurdity correctly. For example, you > claim the aether is stationary. Saying that is wrong implicitly states > that the aether could be moving or something. But Einstein stated the > aether cannot have the properties of motion. Moron who care what Einstein said....his theory is a failure. The aether can serves as reference for absolute motions. Like water in a fish tank, it serves as reference for motions of the fishes swimming within it. >Therefore saying the aether > is stationary is "not even wrong" because the entire property (motion) > doesn't even apply to it, not that the value of the property (zero) is > wrong. It's like stating that green is stationary. Not even wrong, the > concept of motion cannot be applied to the color green, even if you can > give the property of motion to green objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o34261$1dvp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402137 |
kenseto wrote: > But Einstein stated the >> aether cannot have the properties of motion. > > Moron who care what Einstein said....his theory is a failure. The aether > can serves as reference for absolute motions. Like water in a fish tank, > it serves as reference for motions of the fishes swimming within it. Excellent approach. How about fish in a river??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web