Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-25 15:09 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-02-26 07:15 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:09 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-26 13:32 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-03 07:53 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:38 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-08 13:33 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 11:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 13:46 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:16 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 06:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 07:03 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:35 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:42 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-11 18:54 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 01:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 22:44 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:30 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:12 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-23 18:50 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 17:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 09:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-12 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 16:01 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 21:14 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 11:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:37 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 12:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 20:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 14:11 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:27 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:31 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-14 14:28 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-03-16 14:10 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-16 14:39 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-16 09:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 21:34 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 06:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 08:47 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-17 19:22 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 12:05 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 16:37 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:32 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-15 17:13 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-13 06:14 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 14:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:53 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 15:25 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 17:19 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 22:51 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 15:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 16:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 09:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:10 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-03 15:08 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:22 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 12:43 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 07:50 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:26 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:27 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 15:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 21:20 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 02:46 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 19:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 06:39 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-18 21:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:51 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:34 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 11:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 07:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d60fc97-5cbe-4950-8fe6-f7fbf9ecf44b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452775 |
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 15:57:04 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Oh dear. > I’ve been talking with someone who is mentally ill. No. You're just a complete idiot and the meaning of what you say is too complicated for you. No wonder, of course, common language is complicated and the way it interact with brain is complicated too, and you're just a poor idiot woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cca399c0-e504-4bbe-a03d-c8b4460ac4b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452691 |
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:11:12 PM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:44:50 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Oh if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t spend so much effort bitching about it. > > Not caring about it is different than having no respect for it. You have no > > respect for it > > Odd, poor idiot, you won't win respect by lies, incompetence, > fanatism and screams Pot, kettle, very black! > [More lies from the lying Wozzie-boy idiot.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-15 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8751dddc-8184-44f0-a08d-01ff7b334f7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452644 |
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:01:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> On 3/12/18 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than > >>>> in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and > >>>> no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before > >>>> entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? > >>> > >>> SR doesn't, because it does not include a theory of electrodynamics. > >>> > >>> Both Classical Electrodynamics and QED do explain this, at different levels of > >>> sophistication. > >>> > >>> In QED, inside an optical medium there are lots of charged particles, and the > >>> interactions between these myriad particles and the photons retard the latters' > >>> progress through the medium. In vacuum there are no charged particles to slow > >>> down the photons, so once they have left the medium they travel at c. Continuity > >>> of the field ensures that the properties of the light ray are the same after > >>> exiting the medium as they were before entering it. > >>> > >>> Tom Roberts > >>> > >> > >> Seto is going to complain that a physical theory should explain everything, > >> and that there shouldn’t be several different theories that cover different > >> domains of questions, because that makes brains hurt. > > > > Yes, if you have the correct physical theory you can indeed explain > > everything. So what is your problem? > > Is this something you just decided should be true? Idiot, that’s what “the theory of everything” mean. > > > > > > >> He will tell you that > >> any theory that doesn’t explain everything is therefore broken, and that > >> his theory should be recognized because it is the only theory that claims > >> to explain everything. > > > > No, it just mean that your theory is incomplete. Model Mechanics is the > > only theory that explains all the processes, all the interactions of the universe. > > See? > > > > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8e1js$9n3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452771 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:01:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> On 3/12/18 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than >>>>>> in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and >>>>>> no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before >>>>>> entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? >>>>> >>>>> SR doesn't, because it does not include a theory of electrodynamics. >>>>> >>>>> Both Classical Electrodynamics and QED do explain this, at different levels of >>>>> sophistication. >>>>> >>>>> In QED, inside an optical medium there are lots of charged particles, and the >>>>> interactions between these myriad particles and the photons retard the latters' >>>>> progress through the medium. In vacuum there are no charged particles to slow >>>>> down the photons, so once they have left the medium they travel at c. Continuity >>>>> of the field ensures that the properties of the light ray are the same after >>>>> exiting the medium as they were before entering it. >>>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seto is going to complain that a physical theory should explain everything, >>>> and that there shouldn’t be several different theories that cover different >>>> domains of questions, because that makes brains hurt. >>> >>> Yes, if you have the correct physical theory you can indeed explain >>> everything. So what is your problem? >> >> Is this something you just decided should be true? > > Idiot, that’s what “the theory of everything” mean. And Ken, you probably are not aware that this whimsical term has the same weight and value as Lederman’s “God particle”. Scientists should perhaps be more careful when they use terms like “theory of everything” because there are idiots like you who take that seriously. >> >>> >>> >>>> He will tell you that >>>> any theory that doesn’t explain everything is therefore broken, and that >>>> his theory should be recognized because it is the only theory that claims >>>> to explain everything. >>> >>> No, it just mean that your theory is incomplete. Model Mechanics is the >>> only theory that explains all the processes, all the interactions of the universe. >> >> See? >> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2018-03-16 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7cdf09c-be6d-40b8-bd20-7fb983b11371@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452776 |
On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:01:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>>> On 3/12/18 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than > >>>>>> in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and > >>>>>> no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before > >>>>>> entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? > >>>>> > >>>>> SR doesn't, because it does not include a theory of electrodynamics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Both Classical Electrodynamics and QED do explain this, at different levels of > >>>>> sophistication. > >>>>> > >>>>> In QED, inside an optical medium there are lots of charged particles, and the > >>>>> interactions between these myriad particles and the photons retard the latters' > >>>>> progress through the medium. In vacuum there are no charged particles to slow > >>>>> down the photons, so once they have left the medium they travel at c. Continuity > >>>>> of the field ensures that the properties of the light ray are the same after > >>>>> exiting the medium as they were before entering it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Seto is going to complain that a physical theory should explain everything, > >>>> and that there shouldn’t be several different theories that cover different > >>>> domains of questions, because that makes brains hurt. > >>> > >>> Yes, if you have the correct physical theory you can indeed explain > >>> everything. So what is your problem? > >> > >> Is this something you just decided should be true? > > > > Idiot, that’s what “the theory of everything” mean. > > And Ken, you probably are not aware that this whimsical term has the same > weight and value as Lederman’s “God particle”. Scientists should perhaps be > more careful when they use terms like “theory of everything” because there > are idiots like you who take that seriously. Idiot, the universe is not as complex as physicists make out to be. The reason why we are in such quandary is that the mathematicians took over for the development and they developed equations then they invented non-existing math objects such as virtual particles pop in and out of empty space, extra dimensions, length contraction, time dilation, spacetime and curvature in spacetime....etc to explain their equations. As you can see the mathematicians will never be able to find the theory of everything because they start out with the wrong assumptions: that the math objects that they invented will lead to the theory of everything. I took the logical route to find the one physical theory of everything. I believe that God, the Creator, created one physical model of our universe that can explain all the processes, all the particles, all the forces and all the interactions of nature. All we need to do is to find this one physical model. I used a new approach called the Pyramid Technique to find the physical TOE and I was successful and found the physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics. Chapter 2 of my book in the following link describes how the Pyramid Technique lead to the discovery of Model Mechanics. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8gj7q$g0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #452887 |
On 2018-03-16, kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > I took the logical route to find the one physical theory of > everything. I believe that God, the Creator, created one physical > model of our universe that can explain all the processes, all the > particles, all the forces and all the interactions of nature. That's not logical route, that's superstition... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8gkvf$ngq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452887 |
kenseto wrote: >> And Ken, you probably are not aware that this whimsical term has the >> same weight and value as Lederman’s “God particle”. Scientists should >> perhaps be more careful when they use terms like “theory of everything” >> because there are idiots like you who take that seriously. > > Idiot, the universe is not as complex as physicists make out to be. The > reason why we are in such quandary is that the mathematicians took over > for the development and they developed equations then they invented > non-existing math objects such as virtual particles pop in and out of > empty space, extra dimensions, length contraction, time dilation, > spacetime and curvature in spacetime....etc to explain their equations. > As you can see the mathematicians will never be able to find the theory > of everything because they start out with the wrong assumptions: that > the math objects that they invented will lead to the theory of > everything. Hmm, thanks. I wish it would have been me saying the above. I am a number two, one more time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8h1rl$idc$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #452891 |
The nymshifting troll, currently trolling as Térov_Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> trolled: >Hmm, thanks. I wish it would have been me saying the above. I am a number >two, one more time. You most certainly are a Number Two, Nymshifter!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8grph$150q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452887 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:01:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/12/18 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than >>>>>>>> in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and >>>>>>>> no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before >>>>>>>> entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SR doesn't, because it does not include a theory of electrodynamics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both Classical Electrodynamics and QED do explain this, at different levels of >>>>>>> sophistication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In QED, inside an optical medium there are lots of charged particles, and the >>>>>>> interactions between these myriad particles and the photons retard the latters' >>>>>>> progress through the medium. In vacuum there are no charged particles to slow >>>>>>> down the photons, so once they have left the medium they travel at c. Continuity >>>>>>> of the field ensures that the properties of the light ray are the same after >>>>>>> exiting the medium as they were before entering it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Seto is going to complain that a physical theory should explain everything, >>>>>> and that there shouldn’t be several different theories that cover different >>>>>> domains of questions, because that makes brains hurt. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, if you have the correct physical theory you can indeed explain >>>>> everything. So what is your problem? >>>> >>>> Is this something you just decided should be true? >>> >>> Idiot, that’s what “the theory of everything” mean. >> >> And Ken, you probably are not aware that this whimsical term has the same >> weight and value as Lederman’s “God particle”. Scientists should perhaps be >> more careful when they use terms like “theory of everything” because there >> are idiots like you who take that seriously. > > Idiot, the universe is not as complex as physicists make out to be. Unfortunately it is quite a bit more complicated than you want it to be. You want it to be intuitive to the common man, and do you pretend that it is. > The reason why we are in such quandary is that the mathematicians took > over for the development and they developed equations then they invented > non-existing math objects such as virtual particles pop in and out of > empty space, extra dimensions, length contraction, time dilation, > spacetime and curvature in spacetime....etc to explain their equations. > As you can see the mathematicians will never be able to find the theory > of everything because they start out with the wrong assumptions: that the > math objects that they invented will lead to the theory of everything. > > I took the logical route to find the one physical theory of everything. I > believe that God, the Creator, created one physical model of our universe > that can explain all the processes, all the particles, all the forces and > all the interactions of nature. All we need to do is to find this one > physical model. I used a new approach called the Pyramid Technique to > find the physical TOE and I was successful and found the physical model > of our universe called Model Mechanics. Chapter 2 of my book in the > following link describes how the Pyramid Technique lead to the discovery > of Model Mechanics. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016 > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01d6e09f-edb6-42b3-b28d-e4ac3b68704b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452905 |
On Friday, 16 March 2018 17:36:05 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Idiot, the universe is not as complex as physicists make out to be. > > Unfortunately it is quite a bit more complicated than you want it to be. > You want it to be intuitive to the common man, and do you pretend that it > is. And even more unfortunately, it's also a bit more complicated than YOU want it to be, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-16 21:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3547e5cf-bd7a-4a30-a7dc-6478587c5d1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452905 |
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 12:36:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:57:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:01:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 3/12/18 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than > >>>>>>>> in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and > >>>>>>>> no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before > >>>>>>>> entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> SR doesn't, because it does not include a theory of electrodynamics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Both Classical Electrodynamics and QED do explain this, at different levels of > >>>>>>> sophistication. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In QED, inside an optical medium there are lots of charged particles, and the > >>>>>>> interactions between these myriad particles and the photons retard the latters' > >>>>>>> progress through the medium. In vacuum there are no charged particles to slow > >>>>>>> down the photons, so once they have left the medium they travel at c. Continuity > >>>>>>> of the field ensures that the properties of the light ray are the same after > >>>>>>> exiting the medium as they were before entering it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Seto is going to complain that a physical theory should explain everything, > >>>>>> and that there shouldn’t be several different theories that cover different > >>>>>> domains of questions, because that makes brains hurt. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, if you have the correct physical theory you can indeed explain > >>>>> everything. So what is your problem? > >>>> > >>>> Is this something you just decided should be true? > >>> > >>> Idiot, that’s what “the theory of everything” mean. > >> > >> And Ken, you probably are not aware that this whimsical term has the same > >> weight and value as Lederman’s “God particle”. Scientists should perhaps be > >> more careful when they use terms like “theory of everything” because there > >> are idiots like you who take that seriously. > > > > Idiot, the universe is not as complex as physicists make out to be. > > Unfortunately it is quite a bit more complicated than you want it to be. > You want it to be intuitive to the common man, and do you pretend that it > is. Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to explain the processes of nature. That’s why it is way too complicated. There is nothing wrong with intuition...you should try it sometime. > > > > The reason why we are in such quandary is that the mathematicians took > > over for the development and they developed equations then they invented > > non-existing math objects such as virtual particles pop in and out of > > empty space, extra dimensions, length contraction, time dilation, > > spacetime and curvature in spacetime....etc to explain their equations. > > As you can see the mathematicians will never be able to find the theory > > of everything because they start out with the wrong assumptions: that the > > math objects that they invented will lead to the theory of everything. > > > > I took the logical route to find the one physical theory of everything. I > > believe that God, the Creator, created one physical model of our universe > > that can explain all the processes, all the particles, all the forces and > > all the interactions of nature. All we need to do is to find this one > > physical model. I used a new approach called the Pyramid Technique to > > find the physical TOE and I was successful and found the physical model > > of our universe called Model Mechanics. Chapter 2 of my book in the > > following link describes how the Pyramid Technique lead to the discovery > > of Model Mechanics. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <462e4ed8-99e2-465f-aacf-7302ac778190@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452952 |
On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to > explain the processes of nature. Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <362172ef-163d-4edd-92b6-082a117858b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452971 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to > > explain the processes of nature. > > Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable > "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments and in proposed experiments described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8jf4l$te9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #452978 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> > >> > Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to >> > explain the processes of nature. >> >> Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable >> "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. >Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments and in >proposed experiments described in the following link: Stupid Ken, how could the Ematrix be detected (past tense) in proposed (future) experiments??? And the past experiments either have known other explanations or are completely misinterpreted by you. All you are doing is blaming your Ematrix for the results. It explains nothing. >http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2015experiment.pdf Link is still broken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 19:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5aad5ce1$0$3849$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #452978 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to >>> explain the processes of nature. >> >> Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable >> "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. > > Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments and in > proposed experiments described in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf Ken, only Chuck Noris' ideas can be detected by yet to be done proposed experiment. Seriously, there is another problem with your E-Matrix thing... It is a self-contradictory concept. You said numerous times that ANY acceleration of any kind, in any direction increases speed with respect to E-Matrix, didn't you? Now connect the dots...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <854f7aff-191d-4fd8-9c7e-1aaa9ba5bfdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452978 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:47:13 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to > > > explain the processes of nature. > > > > Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable > > "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. > > Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments Imbecile, the "e-matrix" is a delusional figment of your diseased imagination. And it has NEVER been detected. You are a delusional liar. > and in proposed experiments described in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf It is hopeless to refer to a refuted piece of crap like that :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <342b6b40-dac5-493c-aca5-e8b7e84a8c54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452994 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:23:50 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:47:13 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to > > > > explain the processes of nature. > > > > > > Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable > > > "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. > > > > Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments > > Imbecile, the "e-matrix" is a delusional figment of your diseased > imagination. And it has NEVER been detected. You are a delusional > liar. Moron the following past experiments detected the E-Matrix: the Compton shift experiment, The Photoelectric experiment and the double slit experiment. > > > and in proposed experiments described in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > It is hopeless to refer to a refuted piece of crap like that :-) You are a piece of crap....you didn’t read the link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8jp93$1kj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452999 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:23:50 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:47:13 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:50:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately the mathematicians invented non-existing math objects to >>>>> explain the processes of nature. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, Ken Seto invented the non-existing and undetectable >>>> "E-matrix" which explains NOTHING. >>> >>> Idiot, the E-Matrix has been detected in past experiments >> >> Imbecile, the "e-matrix" is a delusional figment of your diseased >> imagination. And it has NEVER been detected. You are a delusional >> liar. > > Moron the following past experiments detected the E-Matrix: the Compton > shift experiment, The Photoelectric experiment and the double slit experiment. No they didn’t. You can’t match any numbers between your E-matrix calculations and observed numbers. Until you can, those experiments cannot be said to support your idea. Your idea is not a theory until you can show you can calculate numbers from it and those numbers match measurement. You haven’t done that. >> >>> and in proposed experiments described in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> It is hopeless to refer to a refuted piece of crap like that :-) > > You are a piece of crap....you didn’t read the link. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 12:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe2e3e88-a6cf-4a17-80f8-e65c98dbef12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452999 |
> Moron the following past experiments detected the E-Matrix: the Compton shift > experiment, Dead wrong. Velocities were purely relative to the observer. > The Photoelectric experiment and the double slit experiment. Complete and utter baloney. Both targets and sources were at rest with each other. No reference to any medium required in ANY of the referenced experiments. > > > and in proposed experiments described in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > It is hopeless to refer to a refuted piece of crap like that :-) > > You are a piece of crap.... Childish response. > you didn’t read the link. How do you know this. liar? I read you horse manure a long time ago. It is bull plop from start to finish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-17 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16e5e3ae-9248-4c60-a42f-4de3bc63eedc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453009 |
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 12:35:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > How do you know this. liar? I read you horse manure a long time ago. > It is bull plop from start to finish. C'mon, Gary which is it? Horse manure or bull plop?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web