Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #473779 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100
Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 04:20 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:12 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 12:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:40 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:22 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-07 14:42 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 17:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 06:56 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 13:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 06:09 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:43 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 08:51 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:24 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 08:53 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:22 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 14:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:47 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-05 04:26 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-06 08:32 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 01:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 21:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:10 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:15 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:06 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:52 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-10-02 20:28 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-03 03:32 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 05:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:58 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 03:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:16 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:36 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 21:56 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 04:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 00:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:58 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 02:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 03:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 12:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:49 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 05:42 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:46 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 09:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:26 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 11:45 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:15 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:58 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:54 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:10 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 19:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:37 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:39 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 22:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 09:00 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:33 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 13:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-04 14:28 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:32 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:03 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:59 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 16:37 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 12:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-08 17:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:39 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-08 20:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 13:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-15 22:21 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:10 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:50 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:43 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:30 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 22:47 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:07 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-15 22:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:39 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-16 05:03 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:50 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:31 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 06:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:02 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 18:47 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 11:44 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 23:11 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:41 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 13:04 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 08:45 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:43 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-10 07:08 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-09 14:04 +0000
Another Reason "Why the *Medium* Matters." Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5e1d118-50fb-4033-b626-90b71f3ee935@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473809 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>> the wave travels, > >>>> > >>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>> > >>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >> > >> The latter cannot be matter. > > > > Yes it can. > > Experiment says no. Experiments say yes. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <754bf5c2-f664-42db-921f-18b97afda8d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473925 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 15:06:41 UTC+2, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > > >>>>> the wave travels, > > >>>> > > >>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > > >>> > > >>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > > >> > > >> The latter cannot be matter. > > > > > > Yes it can. > > > > Experiment says no. > > Experiments say yes. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf Experiments don't fool themself. They stay silent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2iah$12jm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473925 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>> >>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>> >>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>> >>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>> >>> Yes it can. >> >> Experiment says no. > > Experiments say yes. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are actually done. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5caee867-dde6-4962-bfa9-b423ba476933@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473934 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>> > >>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>> > >>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>> > >>> Yes it can. > >> > >> Experiment says no. > > > > Experiments say yes. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. The Compton shift experiment, the photoelectric experiment and the double slit experiment in the above link show absolute motion and thus confirmed the existence of a light medium. > Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > actually done. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2npl$1ckj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473936 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>> >>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>> >>>>> Yes it can. >>>> >>>> Experiment says no. >>> >>> Experiments say yes. >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>> >> >> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > > The Compton shift experiment, the photoelectric experiment and the double > slit experiment in the above link show absolute motion and thus confirmed > the existence of a light medium. Models without a material medium also are in line with those experiments. Therefore, if your idea had any calculations behind it, then the best you could say is that these experiments EITHER support a model with a material medium or one that doesn’t. There would be no reason to use these experiments to FAVOR the model with a material medium. However, given that you have not demonstrated a single calculation with your model — not one — then yours isn’t even considered a viable physical theory by physicists, which is why you have been ignored by them. > >> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >> actually done. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2rk6$f2b$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473936 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> >>> Yes it can. >> >> >> >> Experiment says no. >> > >> > Experiments say yes. >> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >The Compton shift experiment, the photoelectric experiment and the >double slit experiment in the above link show absolute motion No, Ken, those are 'postdictions', you created them after the experiments were already done and the results known by you. You didn't prove anything, you simply conjured up explanations that seem (to you, anyway) to explain them. 'Postdictions' are good when deriving a hypothesis, but not as proof of anything. The only time a 'postdiction' can be ignored as being such is if the results were totally unknown to the scientist. For example, Johann Galle is credited with discovering Neptune, but Galileo saw Neptune twice in 1612 or 1613, but he didn't think of it as anything but a star and Galle didn't know anything of Galileo's sightings, he got credit for discovering Neptune. Secondly, existing science ALREADY has explanations for those results, so there is no reason to choose IRT over existing science at all. Maybe if you did some calculations and PREDICTED something novel, you'd have something, but you refuse to do ANY calculations. (Because you CAN'T) > and thus confirmed the existence of a light medium. No confirmation, no reason to choose your crap over existing science. Especially if there aren't any predictions! >> Hypothetical experiments in the future don't say anything until they are >> actually done. Correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cf1515c-7a66-4215-bec0-502b9835b085@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473934 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>> > >>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>> > >>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>> > >>> Yes it can. > >> > >> Experiment says no. > > > > Experiments say yes. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > actually done. Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: v=c-c'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2pdk$1fpt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473954 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>> >>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>> >>>>> Yes it can. >>>> >>>> Experiment says no. >>> >>> Experiments say yes. >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>> >> >> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >> actually done. > > Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > v=c-c' > Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would acknowledge. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5753314d-4cd6-49eb-8761-71d7a4069201@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473959 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 18:06:15 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > that light has constant speed. In the imagination of a brainwashed fanatic idiot, only.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97a3cd5d-3df4-48f6-a28c-0283618b4981@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473959 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes it can. > >>>> > >>>> Experiment says no. > >>> > >>> Experiments say yes. > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>> > >> > >> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > >> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > >> actually done. > > > > Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > > v=c-c' > > > > Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an > experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And > since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable > to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would > acknowledge. v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp5bct$1na6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474067 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes it can. >>>>>> >>>>>> Experiment says no. >>>>> >>>>> Experiments say yes. >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >>>> actually done. >>> >>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: >>> v=c-c' >>> >> >> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model >> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an >> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And >> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable >> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would >> acknowledge. > > v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the > observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) > That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the difference? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <963e051a-1a20-4cd1-88c6-6946b671f6b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474073 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes it can. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Experiment says no. > >>>>> > >>>>> Experiments say yes. > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > >>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > >>>> actually done. > >>> > >>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > >>> v=c-c' > >>> > >> > >> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > >> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an > >> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And > >> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable > >> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would > >> acknowledge. > > > > v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the > > observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) > > > > That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the > difference? It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp5p9h$ibd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474078 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes it can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Experiment says no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Experiments say yes. >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >>>>>> actually done. >>>>> >>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: >>>>> v=c-c' >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model >>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an >>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And >>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable >>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would >>>> acknowledge. >>> >>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the >>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) >>> >> >> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the >> difference? > > It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works > A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <193427a5-0969-4d99-b3f1-b8a1459f5468@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474101 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes it can. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Experiment says no. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Experiments say yes. > >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > >>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > >>>>>> actually done. > >>>>> > >>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > >>>>> v=c-c' > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > >>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an > >>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And > >>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable > >>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would > >>>> acknowledge. > >>> > >>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the > >>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) > >>> > >> > >> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the > >> difference? > > > > It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works > > > > A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that > are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All > physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the > number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. > Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce > NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp61pv$vqp$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474115 |
kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) >> that are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. >> All physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced >> the number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for >> example. Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. >> Calculations produce NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. > > What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using > the radar? Might be since radars are not used for calculations. Detection only. You have to compare with the numbers predicted by the IRT and Model Mechanics. Both of which, as subsets of a macho grandes theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp62nh$139q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474115 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Experiment says no. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Experiments say yes. >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >>>>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >>>>>>>> actually done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: >>>>>>> v=c-c' >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model >>>>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an >>>>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And >>>>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable >>>>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would >>>>>> acknowledge. >>>>> >>>>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the >>>>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the >>>> difference? >>> >>> It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works >>> >> >> A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that >> are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All >> physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the >> number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. >> Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce >> NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. > > What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar? > You typed an equation. You did not take real world numbers (that you look up) and you didn’t crunch the numbers to predict a VALUE that can be measured. I honestly think you simply don’t know how to do this. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 08:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2qEtD.340468$6K2.311416@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #474119 |
On 04/10/2018 23:03, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels,
>>>>>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows:
>>>>>>>> v=c-c'
>>>>>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model
>>>>>>> that light has constant speed.......
Not if it is employing Ken's formula, Mr.Bodkin.
Rearranging Ken's formula gives:
c' = c - v
So light speed NOT constant eh!
>>>>>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the
>>>>>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car)
>>>> ....that’s how the radar gun works
>> What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar?
Nothing wrong with your calculations Ken. Very interesting in fact.
keith stein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <634d62d9-047d-4939-9c65-9a13e940a1fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474119 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it can. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Experiment says no. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Experiments say yes. > >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > >>>>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > >>>>>>>> actually done. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > >>>>>>> v=c-c' > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > >>>>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an > >>>>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And > >>>>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable > >>>>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would > >>>>>> acknowledge. > >>>>> > >>>>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the > >>>>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the > >>>> difference? > >>> > >>> It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works > >>> > >> > >> A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that > >> are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All > >> physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the > >> number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. > >> Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce > >> NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. > > > > What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar? > > > > You typed an equation. You did not take real world numbers (that you look > up) and you didn’t crunch the numbers to predict a VALUE that can be > measured. I honestly think you simply don’t know how to do this. I did take real number: c=Lambda(frequency of the source at rest with the observer) c’=Lambda(return frequency from the car) v_car=c-c’ All these are real measurable numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppaios$ch8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474168 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Experiment says no. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Experiments say yes. >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. >>>>>>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are >>>>>>>>>> actually done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: >>>>>>>>> v=c-c' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model >>>>>>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an >>>>>>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And >>>>>>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable >>>>>>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would >>>>>>>> acknowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the >>>>>>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the >>>>>> difference? >>>>> >>>>> It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works >>>>> >>>> >>>> A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that >>>> are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All >>>> physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the >>>> number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. >>>> Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce >>>> NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. >>> >>> What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar? >>> >> >> You typed an equation. You did not take real world numbers (that you look >> up) and you didn’t crunch the numbers to predict a VALUE that can be >> measured. I honestly think you simply don’t know how to do this. > > I did take real number: > c=Lambda(frequency of the source at rest with the observer) > c’=Lambda(return frequency from the car) > v_car=c-c’ > All these are real measurable numbers. > Those are variables. 25.3 m/s is a number. 2.239E-15 kg is a number. 43 arcseconds per century is a number. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56336f24-1fa5-405b-99b2-cc2741612596@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474259 |
On Saturday, 6 October 2018 17:01:52 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:19:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wave travels, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for SOME waves is... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the “E-Matrix”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The latter cannot be matter. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it can. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Experiment says no. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Experiments say yes. > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Experimental RESULTS already in hand say no. > >>>>>>>>>> Hypothetical experiments in the future don’t say anything until they are > >>>>>>>>>> actually done. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Radar gun uses variable light speed to detect the speed of moving car as follows: > >>>>>>>>> v=c-c' > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again, the operation of a radar gun is completely compatible with the model > >>>>>>>> that light has constant speed. Therefore you cannot cite a radar gun as an > >>>>>>>> experimental application that FAVORS a model with variable light speed. And > >>>>>>>> since in your model not one calculation is available because you are unable > >>>>>>>> to produce one, then yours isn’t even a model that scientists would > >>>>>>>> acknowledge. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> v of a moving car= Lambda(frequency of source at rest wrt the > >>>>>>> observer)-Lambda( measured frequency of a source in a moving car) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is not a calculation. That is typing an equation. Do you know the > >>>>>> difference? > >>>>> > >>>>> It is a calculation....that’s how the radar gun works > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> A calculation involves taking real world numbers (that you look up) that > >>>> are appropriate for the case at hand, and you crunch the numbers. All > >>>> physicists do this. Einstein did this for relativity. He produced the > >>>> number for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. > >>>> Writing down an equation is not doing a calculation. Calculations produce > >>>> NUMBERS that can be compared to measured NUMBERS. > >>> > >>> What’s wrong with my calculations for the speed of of a moving car using the radar? > >>> > >> > >> You typed an equation. You did not take real world numbers (that you look > >> up) and you didn’t crunch the numbers to predict a VALUE that can be > >> measured. I honestly think you simply don’t know how to do this. > > > > I did take real number: > > c=Lambda(frequency of the source at rest with the observer) > > c’=Lambda(return frequency from the car) > > v_car=c-c’ > > All these are real measurable numbers. > > > > Those are variables. 25.3 m/s is a number. 2.239E-15 kg is a number. 43 > arcseconds per century is a number. And GPS engineers made GPS broken!! Idiot woodworker KNOWS!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web