Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430602 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-31 14:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-21 14:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 14:30 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 18:14 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-01 17:18 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 17:25 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-01 17:56 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:59 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 15:29 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:45 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 20:05 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:55 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-05 16:14 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 18:39 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 02:01 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-06 17:44 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 15:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 20:19 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-06 21:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 23:34 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 04:01 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 04:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 04:50 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 05:39 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 07:27 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Béèku Mická <bmik@owjfns.gh> - 2017-09-07 21:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 18:30 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 18:27 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 20:54 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-02 01:02 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:49 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:09 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 15:11 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:45 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 19:47 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-22 03:53 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:29 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:39 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:03 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 08:08 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 07:00 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:19 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 16:02 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 06:58 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 09:03 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 07:16 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:04 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 06:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:35 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 07:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 11:36 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 07:50 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 09:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 11:17 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-09 11:37 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-09 18:59 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-09 18:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-09 17:14 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 01:45 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-10 05:11 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 09:08 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-10 07:38 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 09:43 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:39 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:15 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:24 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 06:45 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-12 08:59 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 08:13 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:04 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:42 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 18:04 -0400
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:05 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:15 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:11 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:43 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 18:11 -0400
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:06 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-12 16:36 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 09:02 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-12 14:22 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:26 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:52 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 09:58 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 08:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 10:08 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 10:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 21:15 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 21:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 21:49 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-10 07:57 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 08:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:06 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:21 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 15:35 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:54 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 08:37 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:02 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 13:54 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:45 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:21 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:40 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 09:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-13 18:18 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 05:56 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-14 15:15 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 12:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-21 23:10 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:33 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 06:05 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:06 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 16:00 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-31 21:28 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:57 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 07:31 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-01 12:21 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 12:04 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-01 12:30 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 17:32 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 17:36 +0000
Re: The flaws of Seto's misunderstanding of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-01 13:03 +0000
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-02 06:38 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:04 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 04:05 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-02 21:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:13 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 20:26 -0500
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 12:10 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 13:31 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 13:34 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 14:40 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 05:51 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 09:55 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:06 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:45 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:48 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:53 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:45 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 15:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 12:46 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 14:02 -0700
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ae0850e-beef-4d9e-aebe-3be99a78fdea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432318 |
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 12:18:28 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> ... the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. However, > >>> the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the direction of > >>> relative motion of the source wrt you. > >> > >> "Speed of sound wrt you higer or lower dependant on the direction of > >> relative motion of the source wrt you" and "the speed of sound wrt is > >> not changed”. > > > > Idiot the speed of sound wrt the air is not changed...... > > that’s what I said. Gee you ae so fucking stupid. > > Mr Seto, the air is at rest wrt to the person in that scenario. If the source is approaching, more waves (higher pitch) will arrive per second and thus the louder is the sound and the higher is the arrival speed of the sound. > > Do you really, Mr Seto, think that "Speed of sound wrt you is higer or > lower dependant on the direction of relative motion of the source wrt > you". REALLY, Mr Seto? > > >> Are you so deeply mentally ill, Mr Seto, than you cannot spot the > >> contradiction in your claims? > > You are mentally ill, no doubt about that, Mr Seto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oq16ja$1ug0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433207 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 12:18:28 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> ... the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. However, >>>>> the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the direction of >>>>> relative motion of the source wrt you. >>>> >>>> "Speed of sound wrt you higer or lower dependant on the direction of >>>> relative motion of the source wrt you" and "the speed of sound wrt is >>>> not changed”. >>> >>> Idiot the speed of sound wrt the air is not changed...... >>> that’s what I said. Gee you ae so fucking stupid. >> >> Mr Seto, the air is at rest wrt to the person in that scenario. > > If the source is approaching, more waves (higher pitch) will arrive per > second and thus the louder is the sound and the higher is the arrival speed of the sound. Good grief. Ken knows Nothing about sound either. >> >> Do you really, Mr Seto, think that "Speed of sound wrt you is higer or >> lower dependant on the direction of relative motion of the source wrt >> you". REALLY, Mr Seto? >> >>>> Are you so deeply mentally ill, Mr Seto, than you cannot spot the >>>> contradiction in your claims? >> >> You are mentally ill, no doubt about that, Mr Seto. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-21 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oq1gsn$o8a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #433207 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >If the source is approaching, more waves (higher pitch) will arrive per >second and thus the louder is the sound and the higher is the arrival >speed of the sound. Wow. Stupid Ken is stupider than I thought, if he really thinks more waves per second causes a louder sound!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 12:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <opbq62$1ni1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432168 |
On 9/13/17 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:40:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 4:21 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:37:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/17 12:08 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one claims that , Shito. >>>>> >>>>> Moron they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. >>>> >>>> No, they claim that the speed of light is isotropic, PERIOD (no ow or tw >>>> about it), and so it is algebraically impossible for OWLS to be >>>> different than TWLS. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. >>>>>> >>>>>> What gives you this bright idea, Shito? >>>>> >>>>> Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. >>>>> >>>>>>> Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. >>>> >>>> Inverse square law has no bearing on phase or doppler shifts. >>>> >>>> Do you really think the speed of sound diminishes as it gets further >>>> away from the source? >>> >>> Yes, the speed of sound is: >>> V_s = (wavelength)(frequency) >>> As frequency decrease to zero with increasing distance you will not hear the sound from the source. A nine years old kid knows that. >> >> Oh, Ken. If the frequency diminishes with distance, then you think the >> speed of the sound also slows? > > No moron woodworker.....the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. For the inverse square law, it doesn't matter whether the observer is moving relative to the source or not. An observer twice as far away from the source and STATIONARY relative to the source will experience loudness that is one fourth as much. But you say the frequency decreases the further this observer stands. > However, the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the direction of relative motion of the source wrt you. > >> >> A nine year old kid knows that to estimate how far away lightning is, >> you count seconds between the light flash and the thunder and divide by >> five. So if you count to five, it's a mile away. If you count to 10, >> then it's 2 miles away. If you count to 25, it's five miles away. >> >> According to you, since the speed of sound diminishes as the square of >> the distance, you'd have to count to 20 for a lightning strike that's >> two miles away, because that's four times as much time (2 squared) as >> what's needed for a strike one mile away. >> >> Nine-year-olds know better. >> >> It is utterly AMAZING to me what stupid things you are willing to say, >> just to keep an argument going. Anything but silence, right Ken? >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. >>>>> >>>>> Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-09-14 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38f68a17-18ce-4fe9-9284-96989fdd1227@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432185 |
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/13/17 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:40:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/12/17 4:21 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:37:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/9/17 12:08 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No one claims that , Shito. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. > >>>> > >>>> No, they claim that the speed of light is isotropic, PERIOD (no ow or tw > >>>> about it), and so it is algebraically impossible for OWLS to be > >>>> different than TWLS. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What gives you this bright idea, Shito? > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. > >>>> > >>>> Inverse square law has no bearing on phase or doppler shifts. > >>>> > >>>> Do you really think the speed of sound diminishes as it gets further > >>>> away from the source? > >>> > >>> Yes, the speed of sound is: > >>> V_s = (wavelength)(frequency) > >>> As frequency decrease to zero with increasing distance you will not hear the sound from the source. A nine years old kid knows that. > >> > >> Oh, Ken. If the frequency diminishes with distance, then you think the > >> speed of the sound also slows? > > > > No moron woodworker.....the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. > > For the inverse square law, it doesn't matter whether the observer is > moving relative to the source or not. An observer twice as far away from > the source and STATIONARY relative to the source will experience > loudness that is one fourth as much. > > But you say the frequency decreases the further this observer stands. I said: frequency will decrease as the source is moved away from the observer.......it will decrease to zero (he observer will not hear the sound at all) when the source is far away. > > > However, the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the direction of relative motion of the source wrt you. > > > >> > >> A nine year old kid knows that to estimate how far away lightning is, > >> you count seconds between the light flash and the thunder and divide by > >> five. So if you count to five, it's a mile away. If you count to 10, > >> then it's 2 miles away. If you count to 25, it's five miles away. > >> > >> According to you, since the speed of sound diminishes as the square of > >> the distance, you'd have to count to 20 for a lightning strike that's > >> two miles away, because that's four times as much time (2 squared) as > >> what's needed for a strike one mile away. > >> > >> Nine-year-olds know better. > >> > >> It is utterly AMAZING to me what stupid things you are willing to say, > >> just to keep an argument going. Anything but silence, right Ken? > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ope2d0$1eg4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432316 |
On 9/14/17 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/13/17 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:40:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/17 4:21 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:37:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/9/17 12:08 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one claims that , Shito. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, they claim that the speed of light is isotropic, PERIOD (no ow or tw >>>>>> about it), and so it is algebraically impossible for OWLS to be >>>>>> different than TWLS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What gives you this bright idea, Shito? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inverse square law has no bearing on phase or doppler shifts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you really think the speed of sound diminishes as it gets further >>>>>> away from the source? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the speed of sound is: >>>>> V_s = (wavelength)(frequency) >>>>> As frequency decrease to zero with increasing distance you will not hear the sound from the source. A nine years old kid knows that. >>>> >>>> Oh, Ken. If the frequency diminishes with distance, then you think the >>>> speed of the sound also slows? >>> >>> No moron woodworker.....the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. >> >> For the inverse square law, it doesn't matter whether the observer is >> moving relative to the source or not. An observer twice as far away from >> the source and STATIONARY relative to the source will experience >> loudness that is one fourth as much. >> >> But you say the frequency decreases the further this observer stands. > > I said: frequency will decrease as the source is moved away from the observer.......it will decrease to zero (he observer will not hear the sound at all) when the source is far away. But the inverse square law doesn't matter whether the source is moving or not. All that matters is the distance. > >> >>> However, the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the direction of relative motion of the source wrt you. >>> >>>> >>>> A nine year old kid knows that to estimate how far away lightning is, >>>> you count seconds between the light flash and the thunder and divide by >>>> five. So if you count to five, it's a mile away. If you count to 10, >>>> then it's 2 miles away. If you count to 25, it's five miles away. >>>> >>>> According to you, since the speed of sound diminishes as the square of >>>> the distance, you'd have to count to 20 for a lightning strike that's >>>> two miles away, because that's four times as much time (2 squared) as >>>> what's needed for a strike one mile away. >>>> >>>> Nine-year-olds know better. >>>> >>>> It is utterly AMAZING to me what stupid things you are willing to say, >>>> just to keep an argument going. Anything but silence, right Ken? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-14 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ope93d$1rm1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432316 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/13/17 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:40:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/17 4:21 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:37:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/9/17 12:08 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light >>>>>>>>> speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one claims that , Shito. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy >>>>>>> and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, they claim that the speed of light is isotropic, PERIOD (no ow or tw >>>>>> about it), and so it is algebraically impossible for OWLS to be >>>>>> different than TWLS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be >>>>>>>>> measured over a long distance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What gives you this bright idea, Shito? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to >>>>>>>>> the inverse square law. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inverse square law has no bearing on phase or doppler shifts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you really think the speed of sound diminishes as it gets further >>>>>> away from the source? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the speed of sound is: >>>>> V_s = (wavelength)(frequency) >>>>> As frequency decrease to zero with increasing distance you will not >>>>> hear the sound from the source. A nine years old kid knows that. >>>> >>>> Oh, Ken. If the frequency diminishes with distance, then you think the >>>> speed of the sound also slows? >>> >>> No moron woodworker.....the speed of sound wrt the air is unchanged. >> >> For the inverse square law, it doesn't matter whether the observer is >> moving relative to the source or not. An observer twice as far away from >> the source and STATIONARY relative to the source will experience >> loudness that is one fourth as much. >> >> But you say the frequency decreases the further this observer stands. > > I said: frequency will decrease as the source is moved away from the > observer.......it will decrease to zero (he observer will not hear the > sound at all) when the source is far away. Loudness and pitch are two different things. Look at a piano, Ken. How do you change the pitch? How do you change the loudness? > >> >>> However, the speed of sound wrt you is higher or lower dependent on the >>> direction of relative motion of the source wrt you. >>> >>>> >>>> A nine year old kid knows that to estimate how far away lightning is, >>>> you count seconds between the light flash and the thunder and divide by >>>> five. So if you count to five, it's a mile away. If you count to 10, >>>> then it's 2 miles away. If you count to 25, it's five miles away. >>>> >>>> According to you, since the speed of sound diminishes as the square of >>>> the distance, you'd have to count to 20 for a lightning strike that's >>>> two miles away, because that's four times as much time (2 squared) as >>>> what's needed for a strike one mile away. >>>> >>>> Nine-year-olds know better. >>>> >>>> It is utterly AMAZING to me what stupid things you are willing to say, >>>> just to keep an argument going. Anything but silence, right Ken? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way >>>>>>> light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS >>>>>>> isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 21:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_NWdnZSSXdBHWDXEnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #430602 |
On 8/31/17 8/31/17 4:30 PM, kenseto wrote: > The flaws of SR: [...] These are ALL flaws in kenseto's understanding of SR. NONE are actually problems for the ACTUAL theory. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f30d91ac-7a1f-4d71-a8fc-5753468d3a43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430620 |
On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/31/17 8/31/17 4:30 PM, kenseto wrote: > > The flaws of SR: [...] > > These are ALL flaws in kenseto's understanding of SR. NONE are actually problems > for the ACTUAL theory. > > Tom Roberts Wrong again......for example: inventing a new definition for the meter (1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second) guarantees the constancy of the speed of light in all frames. This is an actual problem for the ACTUAL theory of SR. Why? Because a valid theory does not require new definition to support its postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 07:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oob2cq$m5h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430602 |
kenseto wrote: > The flaws of SR: > 1. Constant light speed in all inertial frames. By definition the speed > of anything is observer dependent. Excellent observation of circularity in reasoning, here we go once again. They are measuring something by the means of Own Definition of that something, in the first place. It is sort of like attempting measuring the probes, of a measuring instrument, by those probes itself!! You can't do it. Excellent observation. We are full of respect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 12:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oobcae$15jn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430628 |
Idiot nymshifting troll Bídníkùm Laterá wrote: > kenseto wrote: > >> The flaws of SR: >> 1. Constant light speed in all inertial frames. By definition the speed >> of anything is observer dependent. > > Excellent observation of circularity in reasoning, here we go once again. > They are measuring something by the means of Own Definition of that > something, in the first place. > > It is sort of like attempting measuring the probes, of a measuring > instrument, by those probes itself!! You can't do it. Excellent > observation. We are full of respect. Insane nymshifting troll saying "we" instead of 'I'. Your insanity include schizophrenia, Mr Dumb?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 12:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oobic0$1evc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430647 |
Python wrote: >> It is sort of like attempting measuring the probes, of a measuring >> instrument, by those probes itself!! You can't do it. Excellent >> observation. We are full of respect. > > Insane nymshifting troll saying "we" instead of 'I'. You seemingly are an uneducated knownothing individual. I was talking to Dr. Kenseto, not to you. Far beyond your level, which is pretty low, even for the averaged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 12:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oobjso$qpt$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430647 |
Python <python@example.invalid> writes: >Idiot nymshifting troll Bídníkùm Laterá wrote: >> Excellent observation of circularity in reasoning, here we go once again. >> They are measuring something by the means of Own Definition of that >> something, in the first place. >> >> It is sort of like attempting measuring the probes, of a measuring >> instrument, by those probes itself!! You can't do it. Excellent >> observation. We are full of respect. >Insane nymshifting troll saying "we" instead of 'I'. >Your insanity include schizophrenia, Mr Dumb? The nymshifter must be counting all the nyms he's used in the past. Must be hundreds by now. And yes, it shows the nymshifter must have "issues" if he counts all the nyms as real people who agree with him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooc5jg$gfi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430662 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>Your insanity include schizophrenia, Mr Dumb? > > The nymshifter must be counting all the nyms he's used in the past. Must > be hundreds by now. And yes, it shows the nymshifter must have "issues" > if he counts all the nyms as real people who agree with him. We don't know what you are talking about. You must be suffering subjugated sort of an oedipus complex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooc5re$gn6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430691 |
Bídníkùm Laterá wrote: > Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>Your insanity include schizophrenia, Mr Dumb? >> >> The nymshifter must be counting all the nyms he's used in the past. >> Must be hundreds by now. And yes, it shows the nymshifter must have >> "issues" >> if he counts all the nyms as real people who agree with him. > > We don't know what you are talking about. You must be suffering > subjugated sort of an oedipus complex. Btw, something I don't recommend. Not my territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 13:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The flaws of Seto's misunderstanding of SR |
| Message-ID | <ooblqg$qpt$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430602 |
Let's see how Ken Seto's lack of understanding of SR misleads him: kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >The flaws of SR: >1. Constant light speed in all inertial frames. By definition the speed of >anything is observer dependent. Here Ken invents his own definition of speed, and he tries to use his own definition as if it was the correct one. Ken frequently makes up his own definitions of things, and this is frequently why he is wrong. >2. Reciprocity: >SR claims: >(1) A sees B=E2=80=99s clock accumulates clock second at a slower rate than > his A clock (runs slower). >(2) B sees A=E2=80=99s clock accumulates clock second at a slower rate than > his B clock (runs slower). >The above reciprocity claims are refuted by common logic. Ken is wrong here because A and B aren't measuring the same thing. A compares the reading of clock A1 to the clocks B1 and B2. Meanwhile, B compares the reading of clock B1 to the clocks A1 and A2. Obviously not the same things. There is no reason why if A and B aren't measuring the same thing that they must come up with the same answer! >3. Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS): >SR claims that the simultaneity between two sources of events is relative. You don't need SR or even motion to demonstrate RoS! Consider the following using only a finite speed of light, no SR, no time dilation or length contraction. Two stars S1 and S2 are 10 light years apart. Observer O1 is at the midpoint of the line connecting S1 and S2. Observer O2 is also on this line, but 1 light year from S1 and 9 light years from S2. In a certain reference frame S1, S2, O1 and O2 are all stationary (no motion involved anywhere). O1 observes both stars going nova at the same time. What does S2 observe? Since O1 is 5 light years from the stars, the light was emitted 5 years earlier according to O1. Since O2 is only 1 light year away from S1 but 9 light years from S2, when O2 observes S1 going nova, but the light from S2 has only traveled 1 ly at that time. It takes 8 additional years for the light from S2 to reach O2. O2 will conclude that S1 went nova 8 years before S2 did. Same if you consider a galaxy 65 million light years away from us (but stationary). We see its light as it was 65 million years ago. But consider creatures there observing us. They aren't as we see their galaxy, since we see how things were there 65 million years earlier. And they don't see us, they see dinosaurs roaming the earth and an asteroid striking the earth killing them. >4. length contraction: >This is invented to maintain the constant speed of light is all frames. Here Ken Seto reads Einstein's mind in 1915, before Seto was even born. Interesting superpowers Seto must have! Also, Seto doesn't understand length contraction so he assumes it can't exist. >real life there is no material length contraction. Also this. Ken inserts "material" into length contraction, sees a conflict with his redefinition and knocks it down. Typical straw man argument. Ken doesn't undestand that length contraction is real, but not material.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d97ae10c-b34e-4082-9d82-254e9a9bf2c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430602 |
No flaws in SR... Flaws in human cognition & assumption
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b56e8533-dff4-4aef-bfe2-4f202e4d5f41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430808 |
On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:38:21 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > No flaws in SR... > Flaws in human cognition & assumption Flaws in SR because it mades flawed assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 04:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oofv2g$c9e$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430819 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:38:21 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >> No flaws in SR... >> Flaws in human cognition & assumption >Flaws in SR because it mades flawed assumptions. Perceived flaws in SR because Seto made flawed assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e75c0bc-01d4-4b8f-9351-ae6173a95f29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430883 |
Michael Moroney kenseto <set...@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 9:38:21 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >> No flaws in SR... >> Flaws in human cognition & assumption >Flaws in SR because it mades flawed assumptions. Perceived flaws in SR because Seto made flawed assumptions. Agreed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web