Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420007 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-20 08:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:32 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:34 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 04:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 09:50 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:20 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:24 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 09:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 14:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 22:50 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 17:03 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:45 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:34 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 10:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 15:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:04 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 14:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:19 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-27 05:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-29 16:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:37 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-30 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 06:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Sienkiewicz Emniak <iecunkn@swazine.po> - 2017-05-28 15:19 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 16:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 10:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Earnest Rives <ueeenn@wweiwne.ac> - 2017-05-29 21:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 19:02 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 06:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 12:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 19:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Schwanenflügel <erwm@wanenf.oa> - 2017-05-30 19:54 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-30 20:04 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 00:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 06:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:01 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-31 09:18 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 07:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 17:08 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 16:55 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 12:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 14:52 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-05-30 15:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 19:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 23:04 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-25 02:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:46 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 13:00 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 21:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og45a4$14eq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420481 |
On 5/24/17 7:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:28:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/17 1:43 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:03:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/17 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:47:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>>>> As Tom has explained, you are comparing apples and oranges. >>>>>> When two clocks meet again, their rates are identical, just like two >>>>>> meter sticks meeting again are identical. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh.....but the two clocks show different accumulated clock seconds. >>>> >>>> And the two meter sticks will have a different accumulated path >>>> distance. Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. >>> >>> What you said is an assertion....”accumulated path distance” is not shown on the moving meter stick after a journey. >> >> Yes, it is, if you use a meter stick that measures cumulative distance >> like a clock measures cumulative time. > > But the meter stick return the same length.....so how do you measure its accumulated distance? By using a distance-measuring device that is not a meter stick. Just like you would use a clock (which measures accumulated time) rather than an hour-glass. > >> >> You're a little confused about how to measure distances and times. >> If you were going to measure the distance between Xenia and Toledo with >> a meter stick, the meter stick would not keep track of that by itself. > > But the length of the meter stick is the same in all frames.....so what is contracting? The length of a meter stick is only the same in its rest frame. It is not the same for THAT meter stick in any other frame. > The SR answer: length contraction is not real. That is NOT the SR answer. For physicists, geometric projection IS real. Only YOU are saying that geometric projection is real. To you, the only things that are real are length changes because of compression and cooling, but those are NOT the only real changes. There is more that is real than what your mind accepts. > It is the geometric projection of a moving meter stick unto the observer’s x-axis. > The Model Mechanics answer: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that > the light-path length of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > The above SR and Model Mechanics explanations are similar. The advantage of the Model Mechanics explanation is that it lead to the elimination of all the > paradoxes derived from the SR explanation. There are no logical contradictions within SR. The only contradictions are between what SR says and what you think is true. But that is not an INTERNAL ccontradiction within SR. > >> You would have to pick up the stick and move it to the next spot on the >> road and then you would have to COUNT the number of times you did that. > > So how do you measure the cumulative distance accumulated by a moving meter stick? Think, Ken, think. How do you measure cumulative distance? > >> An analogous kind of clock would be a small hourglass that finishes >> after say a minute. Then to measure the time between breakfast and >> lunch, you would then have to pick up the hourglass and move it to turn >> it over and then you would have to COUNT the number of times you did that. > > We are not talking about an hour glass for keeping accumulative time. We use the Cs 133 clocks. Good Lord, man, you cannot read. An hourglass -- as I just got through saying -- is NOT an instrument for measuring cumulative time, just like a meter stick is NOT an instrument for measuring cumulative distance. If you want to use Cs clocks, because you are measuring cumulative time, then you should be using something to measure cumulative distance, and a meter stick is not that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <og4edm$7n7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420481 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:28:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/17 1:43 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > What you said is an assertion....”accumulated path distance” >> > is not shown on the moving meter stick after a journey. >> Yes, it is, if you use a meter stick that measures cumulative distance >> like a clock measures cumulative time. >But the meter stick return the same length.....so how do you measure its >accumulated distance? You use an odometer, not a meter stick for that, Stupid Ken. Do you even know what an odometer is? >> You're a little confused about how to measure distances and times. >> If you were going to measure the distance between Xenia and Toledo with >> a meter stick, the meter stick would not keep track of that by itself. >But the length of the meter stick is the same in all frames..... No, it is not, Stupid Ken. >so what is contracting? The meter stick is measured as contracting, Stupid Ken. >The SR answer: length contraction is not real. Wrong, Stupid Ken. Why not learn what SR states for once? >The Model Mechanics answer: Doesn't matter, since Model Mechanics fails absolutely. >> You would have to pick up the stick and move it to the next spot on the >> road and then you would have to COUNT the number of times you did that. >So how do you measure the cumulative distance accumulated by a moving meter >stick? Again, an odometer. >> An analogous kind of clock would be a small hourglass that finishes >> after say a minute. Then to measure the time between breakfast and >> lunch, you would then have to pick up the hourglass and move it to turn >> it over and then you would have to COUNT the number of times you did that >. >We are not talking about an hour glass for keeping accumulative time. That's right, Stupid Ken. He was talking about how an hourglass measuring the rate of passage of time, not keeping accumulative time. You'd use a clock that counts the number of small passages of time such as ticks or flips of the small hourglass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9fac7d0-4983-4302-9714-71ed734c8602@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420391 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 maja 2017 20:03:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Apples to apples: two clocks show different accumulated elapsed time, A lie, as expected from fanatic idiot. They don't - you can check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <og45pl$1po$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420462 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> Apples to apples: two clocks show different accumulated elapsed time, >you can check it at GPS. The GPS satellite is a perfect example of how two clocks show different clock rates. Its clock runs 38 us/day fast, exactly as predicted by GR. So they set its clock 38 us/day slow so its signal, as received on Earth's surface, is exactly correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 09:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og46a2$165g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420500 |
On 5/24/17 9:36 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > >>> Apples to apples: two clocks show different accumulated elapsed time, > >> you can check it at GPS. > > The GPS satellite is a perfect example of how two clocks show different > clock rates. Its clock runs 38 us/day fast, exactly as predicted by GR. > So they set its clock 38 us/day slow so its signal, as received on Earth's > surface, is exactly correct. > Wozniak's position is that if you are altering a clock on a satellite to get its rate to match the rate of the ground clock, then this is equivalent to asserting that the only useful clock is one that is so altered. He does not admit the possibility that clocks would be useful if not so altered. Though examples abound of clocks that are not synchronized ON PURPOSE and which exhibit this same relativistic lag, he will then assert that the usefulness of those applications is not as large as the usefulness of the applications where they are altered. In other words, he uses USEFULNESS as the metric for scientific truth, and he is willing to subjectively attribute greater usefulness to the applications that he likes. If anyone disagrees with his subjective assessment of which applications are useful and which are not, then he will dismiss the disagreement as being misinformed. You're basically arguing with a petulant child who, with crossed arms and a scowl, is making "Pfbpthblpttt" mouth noises at any stance that differs from his own. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b420f9c-4063-4170-8b2b-75cb4e2c6eda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420503 |
W dniu środa, 24 maja 2017 16:45:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 5/24/17 9:36 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > > >>> Apples to apples: two clocks show different accumulated elapsed time, > > > >> you can check it at GPS. > > > > The GPS satellite is a perfect example of how two clocks show different > > clock rates. Its clock runs 38 us/day fast, exactly as predicted by GR. > > So they set its clock 38 us/day slow so its signal, as received on Earth's > > surface, is exactly correct. > > > > Wozniak's position is that if you are altering a clock on a satellite to > get its rate to match the rate of the ground clock, then this is > equivalent to asserting that the only useful clock is one that is so > altered. He does not admit the possibility that clocks would be useful > if not so altered. Though examples abound of clocks that are not > synchronized ON PURPOSE ON PURPOSE of confirming your moronic ideology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <og4cmq$q48$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420503 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >Wozniak... >You're basically arguing with a petulant child who, with crossed arms >and a scowl, is making "Pfbpthblpttt" mouth noises at any stance that >differs from his own. Oh I know that just fine, Wozniak is one of the many kooks here who are completely uneducable. But I am here to watch all the kꙭks kꙭk, and I like poking them with the sharp, pointy stick of actual physics from time to time to watch them squeal and squirm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 23:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1931789-f2da-4f5b-af9f-6919dfed9055@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420513 |
W dniu środa, 24 maja 2017 18:34:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Oh I know that just fine, Wozniak is one of the many kooks here who are > completely uneducable. But I am here to watch all the kꙭks kꙭk, and I > like poking them with the sharp, pointy stick of actual physics from > time to time to watch them squeal and squirm. Keep dreaming, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa3e2402-a0cb-42fc-a157-52d1908e9ea2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420500 |
W dniu środa, 24 maja 2017 16:36:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >> Apples to apples: two clocks show different accumulated elapsed time, > > >you can check it at GPS. > > The GPS satellite is a perfect example of how two clocks show different > clock rates. Yes. Different rates and identical indications. Your Shit predicts oppositely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61916f9b-4773-4b35-895c-b6484b9b5641@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420353 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:47:09 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/22/17 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/22/17 11:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on each clock. Whereas a > >>> meter stick will maintain the same length between meetings.....this means that the predicted length contraction effect is not permanent. > >> > >> Neither is permanent. > > > > The different number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock between meeting are certainly permanent. > > a meter stick remains the same length between meetings means that length contraction is not permanent. > > As Tom has explained, you are comparing apples and oranges. > When two clocks meet again, their rates are identical, just like two > meter sticks meeting again are identical. > This seems wrong. Wouldn't it be correct to say When two clocks are again at rest (rather than when they meet again (co-local & simultaneous)), their rates are again identical (similarly with meter sticks)? > >> > >> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >> account that YOU understand is not better. > > > > You are just bull-shiting. You don’t know any physics. > > > > Ken, you are speaking from a position of ignorance that comes from > declining to read. You're hardly in a position to judge anyone else. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f237f50c-7e7f-4158-83d5-fa060b30a63d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420250 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/22/17 11:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on each clock. Whereas a > > meter stick will maintain the same length between meetings.....this means that the predicted length contraction effect is not permanent. > > Neither is permanent. The clocks accumulated different number of clock seconds between meetings....that effect is certainly permanent. The meter sticks remains the same length between meetings.....that effect is not permanent. > Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > account that YOU understand is not better. My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og1b40$aap$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420315 |
On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >> account that YOU understand is not better. > > My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have a solid idea here. Consider this, Ken. If you and you alone think you have a better idea, and the rest of the entire world disagrees with you, then who is the fanatic? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dafe49f-29c2-4ed0-a4ed-1ffee1207800@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420354 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 maja 2017 14:49:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Consider this, Ken. If you and you alone think you have a better idea, > and the rest of the entire world disagrees with you, then who is the > fanatic? The one believing the entire world supports him?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 06:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <addc1ba3-3e03-472d-8125-1c34849349cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420354 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >> account that YOU understand is not better. > > > > My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > > > > Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > a solid idea here. New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > > Consider this, Ken. If you and you alone think you have a better idea, > and the rest of the entire world disagrees with you, then who is the > fanatic? Idiot I am not alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og1tj8$1e2k$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420366 |
On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>> >>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>> >> >> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >> a solid idea here. > > New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. LOL. > The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >> >> Consider this, Ken. If you and you alone think you have a better idea, >> and the rest of the entire world disagrees with you, then who is the >> fanatic? > > Idiot I am not alone. In your ideas? Yes, you are alone. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6bcdf46-1d3a-4652-b7c2-62b7c6c62da7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420392 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>> > >>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>> > >> > >> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >> a solid idea here. > > > > New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > > LOL. > > > The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > > No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. Yes she is. In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og22l2$1nkl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420409 |
On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>> >>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>> a solid idea here. >>> >>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >> >> LOL. >> >>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >> >> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > > Yes she is. Prove it. What's her name? Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied physics. How can you be a physicist? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1ac94da-ba30-45d0-9f56-42573d6e69e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420420 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>> > >>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>> a solid idea here. > >>> > >>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >> > >> LOL. > >> > >>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >> > >> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > > > > Yes she is. > > Prove it. What's her name? > Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > > > In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. > > What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say > you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied > physics. How can you be a physicist? > Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og45pq$1576$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420485 |
On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>> >>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>> >>>> LOL. >>>> >>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>> >>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>> >>> Yes she is. >> >> Prove it. What's her name? >> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > > You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. No sir. > Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a subject-matter expert to do that. I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > >> >>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. >> >> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say >> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied >> physics. How can you be a physicist? >> > Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on your essay is not the same as endorsing it. >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be0578b1-8bf1-4b82-a072-e91e4d73d0a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420501 |
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>>>> a solid idea here. > >>>>> > >>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >>>> > >>>> LOL. > >>>> > >>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >>>> > >>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > >>> > >>> Yes she is. > >> > >> Prove it. What's her name? > >> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > > > > You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. > > No sir. Then you have no clue who copyright works. > > > Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > > Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether > it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a > subject-matter expert to do that. Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can write a threatening letter to her......just as you did to me. > > > > >> > >>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. > >> > >> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say > >> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied > >> physics. How can you be a physicist? > >> > > Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. > > And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or > similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed > your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on > your essay is not the same as endorsing it. Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work for you. You can go to the FQXi web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. > > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[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