Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #415693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-10 06:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 13:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 06:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-10 15:40 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 09:49 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-10 19:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-10 17:47 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 09:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:04 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 05:51 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 14:53 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 07:32 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 16:40 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 13:39 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:03 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:04 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Heki Entouba <buububu@enou3eh.ac> - 2017-04-13 12:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 23:00 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 12:57 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 15:04 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> - 2017-04-14 14:25 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:09 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-15 10:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-14 08:22 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:07 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 05:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:00 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 13:13 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:40 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-10 14:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 15:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-10 23:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 07:39 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-11 10:15 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 10:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 11:12 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-11 11:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 11:41 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 21:46 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-12 04:31 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 06:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-11 20:32 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 21:51 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:07 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 20:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 23:18 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 05:45 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:06 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 10:40 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:03 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 13:09 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 13:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-13 21:43 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:18 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-15 01:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-15 12:34 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-15 23:07 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-16 10:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Emma Harmony <aymmmaeo@anownwrm.cm> - 2017-04-16 15:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-16 05:42 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 16:54 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-17 06:11 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 12:37 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 14:42 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-18 18:25 -0400
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 05:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 13:08 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 12:30 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 19:34 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:16 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:45 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 14:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:16 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 13:08 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-20 14:05 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 21:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 14:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 13:44 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 06:24 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 06:50 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 14:45 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:00 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:22 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-19 23:20 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-20 12:11 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:06 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-20 16:47 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 09:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-20 23:48 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 15:13 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-21 10:49 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:13 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-18 13:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 13:02 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-19 15:40 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 18:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 06:34 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 16:03 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 13:11 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 01:42 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-18 06:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 20:17 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-04-19 20:30 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 19:37 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-04-20 14:09 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:12 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 15:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-25 01:29 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-25 10:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 14:21 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-26 05:58 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-26 14:26 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:07 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-26 06:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-26 05:55 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-26 17:51 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 12:30 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 06:43 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 14:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 14:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 05:37 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 16:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-29 06:47 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:11 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 07:49 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:59 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 11:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:20 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:23 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:41 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:11 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-02 12:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-03 07:47 +0100
Re: New Gravity Theory "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-28 14:18 +0100
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:46 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-28 14:43 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:12 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 17:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-29 13:58 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-29 13:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:59 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-30 00:55 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:01 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:47 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:13 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 04:01 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 13:04 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:09 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 07:42 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-30 18:19 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 02:39 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:57 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-19 23:15 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-20 01:21 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-26 20:18 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-26 19:20 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 02:06 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-07 07:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 14:19 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 17:45 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-17 10:24 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-26 13:08 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 22:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 13:38 -0700
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 04:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd61a7aa-ba21-4406-92eb-c0e5a7d1f7f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415983 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:46:39 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:35:05 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving > > > Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey. > > > > Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true. > > After all, this was aptly demonstrated by Hafele and keating: > > Hey moron.....you claimed that the two clocks in the Van will show different > accumulated clock seconds after a journey. I misread your abysmally-stupid post. I'm sure I NEVER said THAT. Do you have Alzheimer's or are you just a lying weasel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests > > > > It appears that you are STILL the stupe. And you definitely are. I never wrote anything about a van, let alone two clocks in one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53d6384d-d769-4816-a60f-0bd93b885e07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415998 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:31:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:46:39 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:35:05 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving > > > > Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey. > > > > > > Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true. > > > After all, this was aptly demonstrated by Hafele and keating: > > > > Hey moron.....you claimed that the two clocks in the Van will show different > > accumulated clock seconds after a journey. > > I misread your abysmally-stupid post. I'm sure I NEVER said THAT. Do you > have Alzheimer's or are you just a lying weasel? You said that.....you were arguing with me and the sequence of events were as follows: 1. The clocks in the Van were drove up to the mountain and return. 2. I said: The graphs showed that the different clocks in the Van accumulate clock seconds compared to the Lab clock. 3. But you insisted that the graph showed that the different clocks in the Van accumulated different clock seconds. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests > > > > > > It appears that you are STILL the stupe. > > And you definitely are. I never wrote anything about a van, let alone two > clocks in one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocjeho$5tf$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #415930 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a >moving Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds >after a journey. HeHeHe.... Stupid Ken, don't you know that observation always trumps theory? In other words, if you say the two clocks don't run at different rates, yet experimental observation shows that they do run at different rates, guess who is wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6087e36-91bc-43d4-b55d-f17520d24a2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415955 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:32:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a > >moving Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds > >after a journey. HeHeHe.... > > Stupid Ken, don't you know that observation always trumps theory? > In other words, if you say the two clocks don't run at different > rates, yet experimental observation shows that they do run at > different rates, guess who is wrong? Moron he said that the two clocks in the van will show a different accumulated clock seconds after a journey......not comparing to the clock in the Lab......gee you are so fucking stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocljci$gem$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #415984 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:32:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a >> >moving Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds >> >after a journey. HeHeHe.... >> >> Stupid Ken, don't you know that observation always trumps theory? >> In other words, if you say the two clocks don't run at different >> rates, yet experimental observation shows that they do run at >> different rates, guess who is wrong? >Moron he said that the two clocks in the van will show a different >accumulated clock seconds after a journey......not comparing to the >clock in the Lab......gee you are so fucking stupid. No, Stupid Ken, he did not say that at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d4fec20-e60e-4858-81db-88275e98e021@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415882 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > -- > > Jan > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. Really? You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what you wrote above is not just talk? (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.) So here is a simple test question from classical mechanics: consider the following Lagrangian in 2D variables x and y: L(x, y, xdot, ydot, t) = f(x, y, t) * sqrt(1 + xdot^2 + ydot^2) ...where f is an arbitrary smooth function. Your task is to write down the corresponding Hamiltonian. (NOTE: this Lagrangian is used in optics and specifically in lens design, with the "t" variable set to the length along the lens optical axis, and with f equal to the refraction index. When one writes down the corresponding Hamiltonian (this is your assignment for today), expanding it into a power series yields lens aberrations of various orders, e.g. there are 5 third-order terms, they are known well enough to have specific names: coma, spherical aberration, astigmatism, distortion, and field curvature. There are 9 fifth order terms (they have no specific names really), etc. Modern computer lens optimisation software typically goes to 11th or 13th order AFAIK. As a bonus exercise, you might consider proving that the Hamiltonian has only odd orders when so expanded (hence 3rd and 5th order but no 4th). Hint: it's because of the cylindrical symmetry of the lens.) If you cannot write down this Hamiltionian, you have no business wasting your life away on stupid fantasies and no business telling me I'm not qualified to call your idiotic bluff. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9adbaa71-0545-4caa-882a-9f5e861af0d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415982 |
W dniu środa, 12 kwietnia 2017 05:35:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > If you cannot write down this Hamiltionian, you have no business wasting your life away on > stupid fantasies and no business telling me I'm not qualified to call your idiotic bluff. And, of course, syntax schmyntax. Right, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 05:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df2c9d66-8654-4d5f-9bde-97e01c5e5024@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415982 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > Really? Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. >You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what > you wrote above is not just talk? (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.) How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oclj9g$gem$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #416002 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: >> > > > http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >> > > > >> > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. >> > > >> > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. >> > > >> > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. >> >> Really? >Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea >the physics of my theory. You are right, Stupid Ken. If Jan was more familiar with your theory, much harsher and ruder words than "junk" would have been used to describe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1509978-ef2f-421a-a2b8-f82b67078845@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416002 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > Really? > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are wasting your time on this. End of story. > >You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what > > you wrote above is not just talk? No, of course not. What made you think so? You think that I just pull this stuff out of my butt? This is not open to debate, either you can write down the correct formula or not. > (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified > > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.) > > How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory. There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5089a79c-125c-499c-b94f-5be7df31f378@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416050 |
W dniu środa, 12 kwietnia 2017 19:40:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing > theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories. And, of course, syntax schmyntax. Right, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33c5fead-ec4b-418b-b58e-39f60a812b98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416050 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > > > Really? > > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are > wasting your time on this. End of story. What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it? > > > >You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what > > > you wrote above is not just talk? > > No, of course not. What made you think so? You think that I just pull this > stuff out of my butt? This is not open to debate, either you can write down > the correct formula or not. I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. My equation for gravity is correct. > > > (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified > > > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.) > > > > How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory. > > There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing > theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories. Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <506a81d2-e618-49e4-bff9-f03dfb80e673@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416209 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories? Ken, you don't even understand that reducing the acceleration of a moving body is NOT the same thing as decelerating that moving body... which clearly indicates the you do NOT understand existing theories, even the very simple ones...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocore2$u6e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #416209 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are >> wasting your time on this. End of story. >What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory >of gravity what is wrong with it? Stupid Ken, you can't even calculate the value of (-6)/(-2)! You certainly can't do any math more advanced than that! >> > (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified >> > > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.) >> > >> > How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory. >> >> There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing >> theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories. >Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories? Stupid Ken, it is quite obvious that you don't know SR, given all the stupid stuff you think it says. I keep telling you to learn SR before you think you can replace it. That's why IRT is a complete, total failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54f911d6-f929-459e-a25c-4e4194ef86a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416209 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. > > > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are > > wasting your time on this. End of story. > > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it? You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry. Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although by now extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and sophistication of the equipment) you could stumble upon something interesting without knowing everything there is to know on the subject (like Faraday). Leave the theory to others. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8edec797-c279-4442-a121-4bcb3e058ab3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416329 |
W dniu sobota, 15 kwietnia 2017 00:18:03 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. > > > > > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are > > > wasting your time on this. End of story. > > > > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it? > > You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have > no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE > ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry. Besides, you're the queen of England. And, of course, syntax schmyntax. Right, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72442b13-ba61-4b55-954c-278b5c59b168@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416329 |
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. > > > > > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are > > > wasting your time on this. End of story. > > > > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it? > > You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have > no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE > ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry. No...that's an idiotic mathematician's point of view. Look at the following failure of the math approach: Every time you failed mathematician came up with an equation or an unexplained observation you invented a new non-existing math object to explain them. For example: 1. Field/virtual particle--failed mathematician have no idea what a field is. Weinberg said that fields are stress in space. That means that space must be some sort of medium. Why? Because ampty space cannot have stress. Also, If space is not empty then it violate Einstein's SRT. 2. Dark energy--The failed mathematicians have no idea what is dark energy and have no idea how it is manifested. 3. Curvature in spacetime---The failed mathematician cannot explain how empty space without a medium can have curvature. 4. Length contraction---failed mathematicians made the ridiculous assertions that length contraction is real but at the same time claim that length contraction is only a geometric projection. 5. Mutual time dilation---failed mathematicians claim that A predicts clock B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate and that B predicts that clock A accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and when they are re-united they will show different number of accumulated clock seconds. 6. Much more..... MODEL MECHANICS APPROACH: Real physicists such as myself explain all the processes of nature using a new approach. I posited that there is only one physical model of our universe that can explain all the processes of nature. This physical model is called Model Mechanics( for a description of Model Mechanics please read the paper in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf). Model Mechanics explains all the above failed processes of current physics as follows: 1. Field/Virutual particles in Model Mechanics are stresses or strains (or distortions) in the E-Strings that composed the E-Matrix. These stresses and strains in the E-Strings are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting matter particles in the E-Matrix. Matter particles are ,in term, confined to follow the goemetries exist in the E-Strings and these give the effect of the observed interactions between interacting particles. 2. Dark energy: The geometries of the E-Strings is divergent and interacting particles are confined to these divergent geometries give the effect of the observed dark energy. 3.Curvature i spacetime: An object such as the earth will cause the E-Strings to wrap (due to rotation of the earth) around it and cause the observed the observed curvature in the E-Matrix (space). 4. Length Contraction: The material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is baed on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. 5. Mutual time dilation: There is no time dilation in Model Mechanics. The only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. However, a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion) and this give the apparent of time dilation in moving clocks. The GPS confirms the existence of absolute time. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 are periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second in terms of absolute time. > Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although by now > extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and sophistication of the > equipment) you could stumble upon something interesting without knowing > everything there is to know on the subject (like Faraday). > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ocu21u$1fku$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416368 |
Op 15-apr-2017 om 21:34 schreef kenseto: > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: [snip, keeping Seto's masterpiece] > No...that's an idiotic mathematician's point of view. Look at the > following failure of the math approach: Every time you failed > mathematician came up with an equation or an unexplained > observation you invented a new non-existing math object to explain > them. For example: > > 1. Field/virtual particle--failed mathematician have no idea what a > field is. Weinberg said that fields are stress in space. That means > that space must be some sort of medium. Why? Because ampty space > cannot have stress. Also, If space is not empty then it violate > Einstein's SRT. > > 2. Dark energy--The failed mathematicians have no idea what is dark > energy and have no idea how it is manifested. > > 3. Curvature in spacetime---The failed mathematician cannot explain > how empty space without a medium can have curvature. > > 4. Length contraction---failed mathematicians made the ridiculous > assertions that length contraction is real but at the same time claim > that length contraction is only a geometric projection. > > 5. Mutual time dilation---failed mathematicians claim that A predicts > clock B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate and that B > predicts that clock A accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and > when they are re-united they will show different number of > accumulated clock seconds. > > 6. Much more..... > > MODEL MECHANICS APPROACH: Real physicists such as myself explain all > the processes of nature using a new approach. I posited that there is > only one physical model of our universe that can explain all the > processes of nature. This physical model is called Model Mechanics( > for a description of Model Mechanics please read the paper in the > following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf). Model > Mechanics explains all the above failed processes of current physics > as follows: > > 1. Field/Virutual particles in Model Mechanics are stresses or > strains (or distortions) in the E-Strings that composed the E-Matrix. > These stresses and strains in the E-Strings are caused by the > absolute motions of the interacting matter particles in the E-Matrix. > Matter particles are ,in term, confined to follow the goemetries > exist in the E-Strings and these give the effect of the observed > interactions between interacting particles. > > 2. Dark energy: The geometries of the E-Strings is divergent and > interacting particles are confined to these divergent geometries give > the effect of the observed dark energy. > > 3.Curvature i spacetime: An object such as the earth will cause the > E-Strings to wrap (due to rotation of the earth) around it and cause > the observed the observed curvature in the E-Matrix (space). > > 4. Length Contraction: The material length of a meter stick is a > universal constant. The light path length of a moving meter stick is > predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction > is baed on the assumption that the light-path length of the > observer's meter stick is its material length. > > 5. Mutual time dilation: There is no time dilation in Model > Mechanics. The only time exists is absolute time and the passage of > absolute time is insensitive to motion. However, a clock second does > not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames > (different states of absolute motion) and this give the apparent of > time dilation in moving clocks. The GPS confirms the existence of > absolute time. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 are periods > of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to > make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage > of a standard ground clock second in terms of absolute time. > > > >> Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although >> by now extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and >> sophistication of the equipment) you could stumble upon something >> interesting without knowing everything there is to know on the >> subject (like Faraday). -- Jan Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place... YOU LOSE! Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23ab1a51-ea6d-46e6-bae6-6b87a192b4f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416378 |
On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 2:07:14 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 15-apr-2017 om 21:34 schreef kenseto: > > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > [snip, keeping Seto's masterpiece] > > > No...that's an idiotic mathematician's point of view. Look at the > > following failure of the math approach: Every time you failed > > mathematician came up with an equation or an unexplained > > observation you invented a new non-existing math object to explain > > them. For example: > > > > 1. Field/virtual particle--failed mathematician have no idea what a > > field is. Weinberg said that fields are stress in space. That means > > that space must be some sort of medium. Why? Because ampty space > > cannot have stress. Also, If space is not empty then it violate > > Einstein's SRT. > > > > 2. Dark energy--The failed mathematicians have no idea what is dark > > energy and have no idea how it is manifested. > > > > 3. Curvature in spacetime---The failed mathematician cannot explain > > how empty space without a medium can have curvature. > > > > 4. Length contraction---failed mathematicians made the ridiculous > > assertions that length contraction is real but at the same time claim > > that length contraction is only a geometric projection. > > > > 5. Mutual time dilation---failed mathematicians claim that A predicts > > clock B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate and that B > > predicts that clock A accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and > > when they are re-united they will show different number of > > accumulated clock seconds. > > > > 6. Much more..... > > > > MODEL MECHANICS APPROACH: Real physicists such as myself explain all > > the processes of nature using a new approach. I posited that there is > > only one physical model of our universe that can explain all the > > processes of nature. This physical model is called Model Mechanics( > > for a description of Model Mechanics please read the paper in the > > following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf). Model > > Mechanics explains all the above failed processes of current physics > > as follows: > > > > 1. Field/Virutual particles in Model Mechanics are stresses or > > strains (or distortions) in the E-Strings that composed the E-Matrix. > > These stresses and strains in the E-Strings are caused by the > > absolute motions of the interacting matter particles in the E-Matrix. > > Matter particles are ,in term, confined to follow the goemetries > > exist in the E-Strings and these give the effect of the observed > > interactions between interacting particles. > > > > 2. Dark energy: The geometries of the E-Strings is divergent and > > interacting particles are confined to these divergent geometries give > > the effect of the observed dark energy. > > > > 3.Curvature i spacetime: An object such as the earth will cause the > > E-Strings to wrap (due to rotation of the earth) around it and cause > > the observed the observed curvature in the E-Matrix (space). > > > > 4. Length Contraction: The material length of a meter stick is a > > universal constant. The light path length of a moving meter stick is > > predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction > > is baed on the assumption that the light-path length of the > > observer's meter stick is its material length. > > > > 5. Mutual time dilation: There is no time dilation in Model > > Mechanics. The only time exists is absolute time and the passage of > > absolute time is insensitive to motion. However, a clock second does > > not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames > > (different states of absolute motion) and this give the apparent of > > time dilation in moving clocks. The GPS confirms the existence of > > absolute time. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 are periods > > of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to > > make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage > > of a standard ground clock second in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > >> Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although > >> by now extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and > >> sophistication of the equipment) you could stumble upon something > >> interesting without knowing everything there is to know on the > >> subject (like Faraday). -- Jan > > Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place... > YOU LOSE! > > Dirk Vdm I'm interested in mental disorders :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 10:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ocv9le$10p1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416392 |
Op 16-apr-2017 om 00:14 schreef JanPB: > On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 2:07:14 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: [snip] >> >> Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place... >> YOU LOSE! >> >> Dirk Vdm > > I'm interested in mental disorders :-) I'm confident he is too ;-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web