Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467665 > unrolled thread

I haven't died.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  I haven't died. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-08-13 10:27 +1000
    Re: I haven't died. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 18:05 -0700
    Re: I haven't died. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-13 11:12 +1000
      Re: I haven't died. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 18:29 -0700
        Re: I haven't died. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 18:31 -0700
    Re: I haven't died. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 19:43 -0700
      Re: I haven't died. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 19:56 -0700
        Re: I haven't died. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-08-12 21:12 -0700
    Re: I haven't died. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-12 22:06 -0700
    Re: I haven't died. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:26 +0100
    Re: I haven't died. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:33 +0000
    Re: I haven't died. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-13 14:19 +0000

#467665 — I haven't died.

My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor 
idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing more than a disguised version 
of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by 
movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical 
impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the 
science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its 
disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics might slowly recover some of its 
lost respectability.
-- 

    HGW

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#467666

Why not...?

The truth is slow rate for time is together with gravity strength
and the speed of the atom.

A given time rate comes from these two elements; Gravity and motion.

There is time for time...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467667

On 13/08/2018 10:27 AM, HGW wrote:
> My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with 
> more important things than trying to educate poor idiots who cannot 
> accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing 
> more than a disguised version of LET. Since there is no aether, both 
> theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be 
> affected by movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that 
> SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical impossibility, I am quite content 
> to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along 
> with the science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that 
> has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its disappearance 
> wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics 
> might slowly recover some of its lost respectability.

I see that time has not mellowed you.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467670

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:12:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/08/2018 10:27 AM, HGW wrote:
> > My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with 
> > more important things than trying to educate poor idiots who cannot 
> > accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing 
> > more than a disguised version of LET. Since there is no aether, both 
> > theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be 
> > affected by movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> > Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that 
> > SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical impossibility, I am quite content 
> > to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along 
> > with the science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that 
> > has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its disappearance 
> > wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics 
> > might slowly recover some of its lost respectability.
> 
> I see that time has not mellowed you.
> 
> Sylvia.

Why would it Roy Masters?


Mitchell Raemsch

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467671

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:29:20 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:12:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 13/08/2018 10:27 AM, HGW wrote:
> > > My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with 
> > > more important things than trying to educate poor idiots who cannot 
> > > accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing 
> > > more than a disguised version of LET. Since there is no aether, both 
> > > theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be 
> > > affected by movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> > > Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that 
> > > SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical impossibility, I am quite content 
> > > to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along 
> > > with the science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that 
> > > has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its disappearance 
> > > wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics 
> > > might slowly recover some of its lost respectability.
> > 
> > I see that time has not mellowed you.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Why would it Roy Masters?
> 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

If you are the best at time... show me...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467678

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 5:27:37 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
> My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor 
> idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing more than a disguised version 
> of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by 
> movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical 
> impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the 
> science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its 
> disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics might slowly recover some of its 
> lost respectability.

I'm pretty sure that Einstein's name will endure the ravages of time much longer than does the name Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge... and BTW, anyone with even half a brain knows that *NO* scientific theory can *EVER* be proven, so clearly you haven't 'proven' a damn thing, and remain as brain-dead as ever!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467681

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:43:21 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 5:27:37 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
> > My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor 
> > idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing more than a disguised version 
> > of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by 
> > movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> > Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical 
> > impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the 
> > science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its 
> > disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics might slowly recover some of its 
> > lost respectability.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Einstein's name will endure the ravages of time much longer than does the name Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge... and BTW, anyone with even half a brain knows that *NO* scientific theory can *EVER* be proven, so clearly you haven't 'proven' a damn thing, and remain as brain-dead as ever!

I say it won't be relative but a mathematical Gamma slow rate
that comes from gravity strength and speed of the atom...
with closing velocity doppler appearance...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467688

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:56:27 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 7:43:21 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 5:27:37 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
> > > My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor 
> > > idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing more than a disguised version 
> > > of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by 
> > > movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> > > Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical 
> > > impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the 
> > > science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its 
> > > disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics might slowly recover some of its 
> > > lost respectability.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that Einstein's name will endure the ravages of time much longer than does the name Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge... and BTW, anyone with even half a brain knows that *NO* scientific theory can *EVER* be proven, so clearly you haven't 'proven' a damn thing, and remain as brain-dead as ever!
> 
> I say it won't be relative but a mathematical Gamma slow rate
> that comes from gravity strength and speed of the atom...
> with closing velocity doppler appearance...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

 More word salad from Mitch... with no actual meaning whatsoever...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467692

HGW wrote:
> 
> My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor
> idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing more than a disguised version
> of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by
> movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical
> impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the
> science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, its
> disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe, that physics might slowly recover some of its
> lost respectability.
> --
> 
>     HGW


wat were u in for?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467699

On 13/08/2018 01:27, HGW wrote:
> My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with 
> more important things than trying to educate poor idiots who cannot 
> accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing 
> more than a disguised version of LET. Since there is no aether, both 
> theories are complete nonsense from start to finish. TIME cannot be 
> affected by movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.

Glad to hear that you are not dead, Mr.Wilson.
I do hope your "more important things" are progressing rather
more quickly than the education of these poor idiots eh!

> Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent.
I am wondering just how you think you did that, Mr.Wilson.

Although much of what you say makes good sense, it seems to me
that in fact there is good evidence (e.g. binary stars) that the
speed of light is indeed SOURCE independent.

I think there is also good evidence that light waves (just like
sound waves) travel relative to the stuff/matter which they are
traveling through, and for sure that is what Maxwell thought.

Note that i am speaking here about the velocity of MACROSCOPIC
LIGHT WAVES - not 'photons'.  I make no speculation about the
speed of a photon, which is very difficult to measure, since
as soon as one detects a photon once it ceases to exist eh!

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467716

HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
> My apologies for not posting here lately 

I think you’ll notice no one has said, where did Wilson go?

> but I am just too busy with more important things than trying to educate poor 
> idiots who cannot accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole
> theory is nothing more than a disguised version 
> of LET. Since there is no aether, both theories are complete nonsense
> from start to finish. TIME cannot be affected by 
> movement (L/T) because that would make it a function of itself.
> Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that
> SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical 
> impossibility, I am quite content to just sit back and watch the name
> 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along with the 
> science fiction with which it is associated. Since none of that has ever
> found the slightest application anywhere, its 
> disappearance wont affect the world one iota apart from the fact, maybe,
> that physics might slowly recover some of its 
> lost respectability.



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467718

HGW <HW@home.net> writes:

>My apologies for not posting here lately but I am just too busy with 
>more important things than trying to educate poor idiots who cannot 
>accept the bleedin' obvious fact that Einstein's whole theory is nothing 
>more than a disguised version of LET.

So they finally let you out of the asylum after an extended stay, I see.
Was one of the conditions of your release that you have to wear an ankle
bracelet that uses Einstein's relativity to track your every movement?
No, I don't think Oz does that to their mental patients.

> Since there is no aether,

Yes, one of the great features of Einstein's SR was that he found that the
aether was unnecessary/useless so he did not use it. So no aether is 100%
compatible with Einstein's SR.

>Having proved beyond doubt that light speed is source dependent and that 
>SR's 2nd postulate leads to a logical impossibility, I am quite content 
>to just sit back and watch the name 'Einstein' fade into obscurity along 
>with the science fiction with which it is associated.

It is the name 'Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge' and the fake name 'Henry Wilson'
which will fade completely into obscurity once you take the eventual dirt
nap. Meanwhile it was over 60 years ago that Einstein took the dirt nap 
and more than a century since his great SR and GR papers, and it appears
there is no hint of any future obscurity.

> Since none of that has ever found the slightest application anywhere, 

Other than astrophysics, the GPS system and particle accelerators. And
QFT which helped to create the computer you are using to whine about
Einstein.. Ironic, isn't it!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web