Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475690 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-27 01:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-14 11:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-27 01:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-27 04:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-27 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 14:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 18:47 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-27 23:14 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 14:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 16:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 05:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-29 00:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-31 00:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 17:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-31 23:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 19:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 09:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 12:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 15:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 00:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 04:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 04:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 04:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 05:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 05:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 05:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-29 08:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 10:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 11:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 11:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 14:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 19:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 20:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 23:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 13:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 15:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 16:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 20:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-29 00:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 23:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 06:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-29 21:05 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-29 13:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-30 07:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 17:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-30 11:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-31 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 23:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-29 07:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 12:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-30 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-31 16:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 16:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 08:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 14:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 15:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-02 06:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 15:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 16:49 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 22:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 00:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 15:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 10:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 07:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 15:41 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 15:57 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 00:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-04 12:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:35 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 00:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:22 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 11:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 05:49 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 18:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 23:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 14:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 05:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 08:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 18:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 10:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 20:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 13:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 01:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 12:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 06:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 11:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 12:52 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 20:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 18:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 10:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 10:13 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 19:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:30 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:03 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 00:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:22 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-06 14:39 -0600
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 21:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-06 20:54 -0600
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:50 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 17:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 20:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 11:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-08 21:22 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-08 10:18 -0600
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 18:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 17:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 17:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 15:37 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-08 00:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 19:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 11:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 07:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 15:37 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 15:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideologyua Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideologyua kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideologyua Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideologyua mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-01 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-28 02:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 12:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 15:53 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 16:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 20:05 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-29 07:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-29 07:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 17:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Ulka Górski <dug@jewandass.cu> - 2018-10-29 17:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-29 12:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:21 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-30 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 17:24 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity as an Insane Ideology Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:39 +0000
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 05:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c396565-051c-48b9-bafa-68eaa5086a46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476714 |
On Saturday, 10 November 2018 14:42:58 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/8/2018 10:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 15:52:33 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 19:24:25 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> And with B.A in mathematics you're extending > >>>>>>> mathematical theorems with the titles of > >>>>>>> chapters where they was written. Right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think you will find that most people understand hierarchical context. > >>>>> > >>>>> Odd, poor halfbrain, if you ever had ANY > >>>>> mathematical training you would know that > >>>>> math can't afford relying on context. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> LOL. In this world where you live, what color are the trees? > >>> > >>> Different. And if they realy gave you > >>> B.A in mathematics - it's as sad as funny. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> M.S. in mathematics. > >> > >> And you? > > > > Hey, Boinker! What exact areas of mathematics did you specialize in? > > Topology, real and functional analysis, and geometry. Odd, poor idiot, don't be kidding. If you had ANY mathematical trianing you would know that mathematics can't afford relying on contexts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps6o7t$92d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476716 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Saturday, 10 November 2018 14:42:58 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/8/2018 10:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 15:52:33 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 19:24:25 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And with B.A in mathematics you're extending >>>>>>>>> mathematical theorems with the titles of >>>>>>>>> chapters where they was written. Right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you will find that most people understand hierarchical context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd, poor halfbrain, if you ever had ANY >>>>>>> mathematical training you would know that >>>>>>> math can't afford relying on context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. In this world where you live, what color are the trees? >>>>> >>>>> Different. And if they realy gave you >>>>> B.A in mathematics - it's as sad as funny. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> M.S. in mathematics. >>>> >>>> And you? >>> >>> Hey, Boinker! What exact areas of mathematics did you specialize in? >> >> Topology, real and functional analysis, and geometry. > > > Odd, poor idiot, don't be kidding. If > you had ANY mathematical trianing you > would know that mathematics can't afford > relying on contexts. > > So says your common sense. Lol. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m6mED.739116$NF7.247896@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #476407 |
On 06/11/2018 13:36, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >> On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 12:54:20 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>> On Monday, 5 November 2018 13:59:09 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, 4 November 2018 19:39:29 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 4 November 2018 00:56:20 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then how come you physicists invented non-community usage for such >>>>>>>>>> terms as: field/virtual, extra dimensions, length contraction, time >>>>>>>>>> dilation, entanglement, constant light speed for all observers....etc??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These are physics terms with very precise definitions (mathematical, all of them). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Buhahahahahahahahaha. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aaaand you don’t know them. Chickenshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't know them either. Jan has simply >>>>>> fabricated them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Sorry, your ignorance is showing. >>>> >>>> Yes. But, being an idiot woodworker without >>>> any mathematical training >>> >>> This is where you are wrong. >> >> Sorry, poor idiot. Your revelations >> about Pythagorean theorem showed it >> clearly. >> >>> What I do for a living doesn’t correlate with >>> my schooling. I have degrees in mathematics and philosophy. >> >> What degrees? >> > > B.A., M.S. > > and you? Is that a question addressed to ALL READERS, OR is it a question just for Mr.Wozniak ? Whatever i don't mind telling just you Odd that you got me trashed in the academic honors. i myself got a Pass PHYSICS Degree resit 1965 University of Hull. (after a heated debate among the Dons, they decided to PASS me as, Hull University's Last Classical Physicist). I kid your not Odd. keith stein eh! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 16:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <prl0h4$1lni$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476111 |
On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>> >>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>> >>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>> >>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >> >> >> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >> science but "philosopher" territory. > > Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you > don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication > with them. Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As I said the mechanism for all the forces of nature in my theory is >>>>>> much less fantasy than in QM and GRT. >>>>> >>>>> No. The truth is simply that you don't understand physics, so you declared >>>>> it irrelevant in order to be able, in what to you now seems like an >>>>> intellectually honest manner, to replace it with a fantasy of yours. >>>>> >>>>> A normal person would instantly see the total nonsense implicit in any such >>>>> attempt and would either started to learn physics for real or switch the hobby. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prl1v5$1oc3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476163 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>> >>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>> >>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>> >>> >>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>> science but "philosopher" territory. >> >> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >> with them. > > Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, > I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s so quaint! > >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said the mechanism for all the forces of nature in my theory is >>>>>>> much less fantasy than in QM and GRT. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. The truth is simply that you don't understand physics, so you declared >>>>>> it irrelevant in order to be able, in what to you now seems like an >>>>>> intellectually honest manner, to replace it with a fantasy of yours. >>>>>> >>>>>> A normal person would instantly see the total nonsense implicit in any such >>>>>> attempt and would either started to learn physics for real or switch the hobby. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 20:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <prld16$98k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476168 |
On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>> >>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>> >>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>> >>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >>> with them. >> >> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, >> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! > > I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. > > What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you > insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six > decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s > so quaint! Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is positively pathological!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prldt1$acc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476183 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>>> >>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >>>> with them. >>> >>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, >>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >> >> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. >> >> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you >> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six >> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s >> so quaint! > > Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy > dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that > Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this > day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that > relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without > using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant speed of light. > > You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is > positively pathological! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 20:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <prle40$9oj$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476186 |
On 11/3/2018 8:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>>>> >>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >>>>> with them. >>>> >>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, >>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >>> >>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. >>> >>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you >>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six >>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s >>> so quaint! >> >> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy >> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that >> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this >> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that >> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without >> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. > > And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant > speed of light. Not the way you mean it. >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is >> positively pathological! >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rxmED.310795$p%6.70523@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #476186 |
> >> >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is >> positively pathological! >> > On 04/11/2018 00:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>>>> >>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >>>>> with them. >>>> >>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, >>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >>> >>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. >>> >>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you >>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six >>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s >>> so quaint! >> >> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy >> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that >> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this >> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that >> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without >> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. > > And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant > speed of light. Not according to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, and if the medium is traveling with a velocity V in some frame of reference then light which is traveling through that medium with a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! "voila" INDEED! keith stein > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d4SdndhSA8qOYXzGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #476432 |
On 11/6/18 2:08 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is > RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, and if the medium is traveling > with a velocity V in some frame of reference then > light which is traveling through that medium with > a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity > of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has > velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! Yes. But of course that theory has been SOLIDLY refuted, and it is not valid in any known domain. We have learned a thing or three since 1865. Do not confuse Maxwell's old theory with classical electrodynamics (CE), which uses some of his fields and equations. In CE, for any medium [#] we call "vacuum", the effect of the medium is completely unobservable. CE is valid in a useful and limited domain, but we have a MUCH better model of light, QED. [#] Here "medium" means an optical medium which slows light down, NOT a "medium" which is waving. (As someone said: "your determination to remain ignorant is positively pathological!" As is your incessant repetition of the same nonsense.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prsvc6$fpv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476437 |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:39:47 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/6/18 2:08 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, >> and if the medium is traveling with a velocity V in some frame of >> reference then light which is traveling through that medium with a >> velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity of light in that >> same frame of reference in which the medium has velocity V, is the >> vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! > > Yes. But of course that theory has been SOLIDLY refuted, and it is not > valid in any known domain. We have learned a thing or three since 1865. > Do not confuse Maxwell's old theory with classical electrodynamics (CE), > which uses some of his fields and equations. In CE, for any medium [#] > we call "vacuum", the effect of the medium is completely unobservable. > CE is valid in a useful and limited domain, but we have a MUCH better > model of light, QED. > [#] Here "medium" means an optical medium which slows light down, NOT a > "medium" which is waving. Which translates into, that relativity crash down in a medium which is opaque. One more proof in favour of my Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5mnED.207480$1C7.74295@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #476437 |
On 06/11/2018 20:39, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/6/18 2:08 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is >> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, and if the medium is traveling >> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then >> light which is traveling through that medium with >> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity >> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has >> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! > > Yes. But of course that theory has been SOLIDLY refuted, and it is not > valid in any known domain. We have learned a thing or three since 1865. > > Do not confuse Maxwell's old theory with classical electrodynamics (CE), > which uses some of his fields and equations. In CE, for any medium [#] > we call "vacuum", the effect of the medium is completely unobservable. > CE is valid in a useful and limited domain, but we have a MUCH better > model of light, QED. > > [#] Here "medium" means an optical medium which slows > light down, So please do tell us Mr.Roberts. What is the velocity which is slowed RELATIVE TO ? and in particular what would the speed of light be in an inertial frame on reference in which the "optical medium which slows light" has a velocity V ? keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sM2dnYmK1s1Pzn_GnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #476441 |
On 11/6/18 3:05 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 06/11/2018 20:39, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 11/6/18 2:08 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is >>> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, and if the medium is traveling >>> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then >>> light which is traveling through that medium with >>> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity >>> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has >>> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! >> >> Yes. But of course that theory has been SOLIDLY refuted, and it is not >> valid in any known domain. We have learned a thing or three since 1865. >> >> Do not confuse Maxwell's old theory with classical electrodynamics >> (CE), which uses some of his fields and equations. In CE, for any >> medium [#] we call "vacuum", the effect of the medium is completely >> unobservable. CE is valid in a useful and limited domain, but we have >> a MUCH better model of light, QED. >> >> [#] Here "medium" means an optical medium which slows >> light down, > > > So please do tell us Mr.Roberts. What is the velocity which is slowed > RELATIVE TO ? In an optical medium, a light ray travels slower than the corresponding light ray would travel in perfect vacuum. Both relative to the inertial frame in which the optical medium is at rest. > and in particular what would the speed of light be > in an inertial frame on reference in which the > "optical medium which slows light" has a velocity V ? Given the optical medium's index of refraction is n, then in an inertial frame in which the medium has velocity V, a light ray parallel (+) or antiparallel (-) to V travels with velocity v_light = ( V +- c/n ) / ( 1 +- |V| / (n c) ) For any reasonably good vacuum, n ~ 1.0000000000001 or less: |v_light| is unmeasurably different from c as long as |V| << c. You have been told this many times -- you MUST learn how to read, and how to remember what you have read. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 13:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7afcc7c-7987-4b04-9b61-7213793147ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476432 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > > >> > >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is > >> positively pathological! > >> > > > > > > On 04/11/2018 00:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", > >>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know > >>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the > >>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is > >>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and > >>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical > >>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books > >>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that > >>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you > >>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like > >>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not > >>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. > >>>>> > >>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you > >>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication > >>>>> with them. > >>>> > >>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, > >>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! > >>> > >>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. > >>> > >>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you > >>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six > >>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s > >>> so quaint! > >> > >> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy > >> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that > >> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this > >> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that > >> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without > >> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. > > > > And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant > > speed of light. > > > Not according to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, > In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is > RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's thinking about his own equations but Odd is correct too. > and if the medium is traveling > with a velocity V in some frame of reference then > light which is traveling through that medium with > a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity > of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has > velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! There were at least two problems with that approach: (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, to put it mildly. (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in that system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of electromagnetic interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this shouldn't happen. And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as to be completely unnoticeable. So it was all a big mess. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hAnED.97621$xB1.75984@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #476440 |
On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is >> >> positively pathological! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On 04/11/2018 00:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the >>>>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and >>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical >>>>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books >>>>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that >>>>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you >>>>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like >>>>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not >>>>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you >>>>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication >>>>>>> with them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, >>>>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >>>>> >>>>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. >>>>> >>>>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you >>>>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six >>>>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s >>>>> so quaint! >>>> >>>> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy >>>> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that >>>> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this >>>> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that >>>> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without >>>> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. >>> >>> And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant >>> speed of light. >> >> >> Not according to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, >> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is >> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, > > You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's thinking > about his own equations but Odd is correct too. > >> and if the medium is traveling >> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then >> light which is traveling through that medium with >> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity >> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has >> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! > > There were at least two problems with that approach: > > (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave > components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations > predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc > assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated > the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, > to put it mildly. > > (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in that > system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because > Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of electromagnetic > interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in > uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this > shouldn't happen. > > And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged > according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to > other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to > support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as > to be completely unnoticeable. > > So it was all a big mess. You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan. It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to "the medium". What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh! Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that, then you can go on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question - two answers) keith stein > > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <acdf9de1-621e-4bc1-b9b3-cd1123054c79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476443 |
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> > >> >> > >> >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain ignorant is > >> >> positively pathological! > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 04/11/2018 00:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if asking for a hypothesis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to ask. Does SR satisfy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England who is a worshipper of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating strategy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history of electrodynamics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced MANY problems (despite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding reconciliation of "light > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields satisfying Maxwell's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to reconcile. One > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E and B fields in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all aether theories > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started inventing all sorts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had to obey in order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a partial list of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, Poisson, Cauchy, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether such as the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and isotropically.....no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the following link shows this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your claim. It's FAPP all English > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical models in *full detail*, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can explain all observations. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating something you know > >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. It is > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual particle” and > >>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in full technical > >>>>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to read books > >>>>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything that > >>>>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much everything you > >>>>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they mean (like > >>>>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that is not > >>>>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of usage. If you > >>>>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of communication > >>>>>>> with them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a fantasy, > >>>>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! > >>>>> > >>>>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. > >>>>> > >>>>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way you > >>>>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six > >>>>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for anybody—why, it’s > >>>>> so quaint! > >>>> > >>>> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy > >>>> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is that > >>>> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this > >>>> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that > >>>> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity without > >>>> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. > >>> > >>> And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, constant > >>> speed of light. > >> > >> > >> Not according to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, > >> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is > >> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, > > > > You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's thinking > > about his own equations but Odd is correct too. > > > >> and if the medium is traveling > >> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then > >> light which is traveling through that medium with > >> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity > >> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has > >> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! > > > > There were at least two problems with that approach: > > > > (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave > > components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations > > predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc > > assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated > > the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, > > to put it mildly. > > > > (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in that > > system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because > > Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of electromagnetic > > interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in > > uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this > > shouldn't happen. > > > > And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged > > according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to > > other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to > > support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as > > to be completely unnoticeable. > > > > So it was all a big mess. > > > You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan. No, what I described above could have been written, word for word, in the 19th century. I can give you names of people who in the 19th century have worked on all the issues I listed above. > It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to > "the medium". It's a possible interpretation of the equations, yes. It was considered obvious at the time, and that's how I described it. Reread what I wrote, I'm simply recounting the historical record, nothing "modern" in there. > What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that > "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh! Sure. > Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that, > then you can go on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question - > two answers) I'll pass. It's enough to just stick to facts (historical and otherwise). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prt4i9$pc7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476443 |
On 11/6/2018 4:20 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:08:57 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>> >> >>> >> You ignorance is amazing but your determination to remain >>> ignorant is >>> >> positively pathological! >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/11/2018 00:18, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/2/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2018 11:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:18:47 PM UTC-4, JanPB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:31:23 PM UTC-4, JanPB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:31 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:27:34 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s inquire the Einstein dingleberries if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking for a hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support an experimental result is too much to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask. Does SR satisfy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the null results of the MMX? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Done just that. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot teach you here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Koobee Wublee does not expect the queer of England >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is a worshipper of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysticism and bullshit to teach physics. <shrug> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying about your opponents is not a valid debating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as "mysticism", you should study the history >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of electrodynamics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometime and see how Maxwell's theory introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MANY problems (despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its obvious general success), esp. regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconciliation of "light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as waves in aether" with "light as E and B fields >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfying Maxwell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two turned out to be EXTREMELY HARD to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconcile. One >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the big problems was that in Maxwell's theory E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and B fields in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electromagnetic wave must be transverse while all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aether theories >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed longitudinal components. So people started >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventing all sorts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "mystic" or "ad hoc" requirements that aether had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to obey in order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get rid of the longitudinal components. Here is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who worked on JUST this one detail: Navier, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Poisson, Cauchy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, Neumann, Lamé, Lord Rayleigh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This interpretation is wrong. A structured aether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed transmits light transversely and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isotropically.....no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal component involved. The paper in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following link shows this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in this paper that supports your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim. It's FAPP all English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prose. You need to discuss the relevant mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models in *full detail*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it’s just speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proposed a physical model of our universe that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain all observations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've just written a fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less fantasy than field and virtual particles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't even understand "field" and "virtual particles", >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so how would you know? And in general, designating >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something you know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing about as “fantasy" is not going to lead you anywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know what Weinberg say about the field in his book and >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> excitation of the field is the force messenger the boson. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably that you don’t understand “field” and “virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>> particle” and >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to bullshit me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have to understand what those words actually mean (in >>>>>>>>>>>> full technical >>>>>>>>>>>> detail, otherwise you cannot form a valid opinion). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It appears that you have no understanding of those words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken’s mantra: Words mean what I say they mean. I don’t need to >>>>>>>>>> read books >>>>>>>>>> or listen to physicists about what the words mean. Everything >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> physicists say and everything in books is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know about books and physicists, but pretty much >>>>>>>>> everything you >>>>>>>>> say is wrong, Odd. Defining words to mean what you say they >>>>>>>>> mean (like >>>>>>>>> say "wave" or "medium") is your idea of science. Obviously that >>>>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>>> science but "philosopher" territory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Language is determined by the community in their context of >>>>>>>> usage. If you >>>>>>>> don’t like the community’s usage, then you will fall out of >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> with them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translation: I'm a leftly lib and in MY world whenever I have a >>>>>>> fantasy, >>>>>>> I know that it becomes reality for everyone else! >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you just illustrated your loss of communication. >>>>>> >>>>>> What’s really fun, though, is your attachment to the past. The way >>>>>> you >>>>>> insist that the definitions you hold are the ones you were taught six >>>>>> decades ago, and by golly, that should be good enough for >>>>>> anybody—why, it’s >>>>>> so quaint! >>>>> >>>>> Yeah I went to school with Galileo. He was such a fun guy and a snappy >>>>> dresser too like all Italians! What you don't (can't) understand is >>>>> that >>>>> Galileo created the theory of relativity which is still true to this >>>>> day! If you weren't so determined to remain ignorant you'd know that >>>>> relativity can be proved using no more than Galilean relativity >>>>> without >>>>> using any assumptions such as the constant speed of light. >>>> >>>> And when you use that proven relativity to electrodynamics, voila, >>>> constant >>>> speed of light. >>> >>> >>> Not according to Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, >>> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is >>> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, >> >> You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's >> thinking >> about his own equations but Odd is correct too. >> >>> and if the medium is traveling >>> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then >>> light which is traveling through that medium with >>> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity >>> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has >>> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! >> >> There were at least two problems with that approach: >> >> (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave >> components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations >> predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc >> assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated >> the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, >> to put it mildly. >> >> (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in >> that >> system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because >> Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of electromagnetic >> interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in >> uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this >> shouldn't happen. >> >> And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged >> according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to >> other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to >> support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as >> to be completely unnoticeable. >> >> So it was all a big mess. > > > You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan. > It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to > "the medium". Correct. > What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that > "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh! Well actually He told us it is the thing that the energy is propagating through. What he didn't know was that the medium is clearly not absolutely fixed because no aether drift was found. So moving objects do NOT plow through aether was was surmised. Maybe not so surprising because aether is thin, elastic and lossless. > Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that, > then you can go on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question - > two answers) > > keith stein > >> >> -- >> Jan >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oXxED.193477$e55.41434@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #476452 |
On 06/11/2018 22:28, benj wrote: > On 11/6/2018 4:20 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 6, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is >>>> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, >>> You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's >>> thinking >>> about his own equations but Odd is correct too. >>>> and if the medium is traveling >>>> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then >>>> light which is traveling through that medium with >>>> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity >>>> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has >>>> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! >>> There were at least two problems with that approach: >>> >>> (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave >>> components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations >>> predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc >>> assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated >>> the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, >>> to put it mildly. >>> >>> (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in >>> that >>> system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because >>> Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of >>> electromagnetic >>> interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in >>> uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this >>> shouldn't happen. >>> >>> And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged >>> according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to >>> other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to >>> support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as >>> to be completely unnoticeable. >>> >>> So it was all a big mess. >> You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan. >> It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to >> "the medium". > Correct. >> What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that >> "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh! > Well actually He told us it is the thing that the energy is propagating > through. What he didn't know was that the medium is clearly not > absolutely fixed because no aether drift was found. Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" was air", and no mention "aether", or "ether" either eh! > So moving objects do NOT plow through aether was was surmised. Maybe not > so surprising because aether is thin, elastic and lossless. >> Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that, >> then you can go on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question - >> two answers) You should take my "PHYSICS TEST" too Benj. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 20:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60aef4d7-ad7a-4718-87cf-2e07750cb19a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476481 |
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 1:07:34 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 06/11/2018 22:28, benj wrote: > > On 11/6/2018 4:20 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, November 6, Keith Stein wrote: > > >>>> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is > >>>> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, > > >>> You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's > >>> thinking > >>> about his own equations but Odd is correct too. > > >>>> and if the medium is traveling > >>>> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then > >>>> light which is traveling through that medium with > >>>> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity > >>>> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has > >>>> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh! > > >>> There were at least two problems with that approach: > >>> > >>> (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave > >>> components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations > >>> predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc > >>> assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated > >>> the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying, > >>> to put it mildly. > >>> > >>> (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in > >>> that > >>> system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because > >>> Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of > >>> electromagnetic > >>> interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in > >>> uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this > >>> shouldn't happen. > >>> > >>> And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged > >>> according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to > >>> other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to > >>> support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as > >>> to be completely unnoticeable. > >>> > >>> So it was all a big mess. > > >> You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan. > >> It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to > >> "the medium". > > > Correct. > > >> What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that > >> "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh! > > > Well actually He told us it is the thing that the energy is propagating > > through. What he didn't know was that the medium is clearly not > > absolutely fixed because no aether drift was found. > > Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves > in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" was air", and > no mention "aether", or "ether" either eh! > > > So moving objects do NOT plow through aether was was surmised. Maybe not > > so surprising because aether is thin, elastic and lossless. > > >> Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that, > >> then you can go on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question - > >> two answers) > > You should take my "PHYSICS TEST" too Benj. > > keith stein So what, Keith? Your theory that light cannot travel in a vacuum is not capable of being disproven. No evidence known will ever satisfy you, and no evidence will ever make you think twice. Your theory is not only data-free, it is data-proof, since nobody has ever seen a perfect vacuum, and couldn't prove if they had. Thus, your theory is not really a theory. As you've spun it, it's totally untest-able. It is not science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 11:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rXUED.325483$NK5.6570@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #476536 |
On 08/11/2018 04:24, Steve BH wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 1:07:34 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 06/11/2018 22:28, benj wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2018 4:20 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2018 21:02, JanPB wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In Maxwell's Theory, the velocity of Light is
>>>>>> RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM,
>>
>>>>> You misunderstood what Odd wrote. You are correct about Maxwell's
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> about his own equations but Odd is correct too.
>>
>>>>>> and if the medium is traveling
>>>>>> with a velocity V in some frame of reference then
>>>>>> light which is traveling through that medium with
>>>>>> a velocity c relative to that medium, then the velocity
>>>>>> of light in that same frame of reference in which the medium has
>>>>>> velocity V, is the vector addition of V and c. NOT c eh!
>>
>>>>> There were at least two problems with that approach:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) A medium of that sort would normally allow longitudinal wave
>>>>> components for plane EM waves in vacuum while Maxwell's equations
>>>>> predicted strictly transverse waves. This forced all sorts of ad hoc
>>>>> assumptions on aether's physical properties, some of which postulated
>>>>> the presence of extra forces. None of those efforts looked satisfying,
>>>>> to put it mildly.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Switching to a moving system makes Maxwell's equations invalid in
>>>>> that
>>>>> system (e.g. the Biot-Savart law fails there). This was strange because
>>>>> Newton's mechanics was considered a macroscopic result of
>>>>> electromagnetic
>>>>> interactions at the microscopic level, yet Newton's theory was valid in
>>>>> uniformly moving systems. If one was indeed a result of the other, this
>>>>> shouldn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm leaving aside many other problems like aether should be dragged
>>>>> according to some experiments, and should not be dragged according to
>>>>> other experiments. And it has to be both extremely rigid in order to
>>>>> support such an enormous sound speed yet (apparently) so permeable as
>>>>> to be completely unnoticeable.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it was all a big mess.
>>
>>>> You "moderns" have made a big mess of it you mean, Jan.
>>>> It is just as Maxwell taught you, light travels relative to
>>>> "the medium".
>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>>> What Maxwell didn't think he'd need to tell anyone, is that
>>>> "the medium" is the "stuff" the light is traveling through eh!
>>
>>> Well actually He told us it is the thing that the energy is propagating
>>> through. What he didn't know was that the medium is clearly not
>>> absolutely fixed because no aether drift was found.
>>
>> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves
>> in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" was air", and
>> no mention "aether", or "ether" either eh!
>>
>>> So moving objects do NOT plow through aether was was surmised. Maybe not
>>> so surprising because aether is thin, elastic and lossless.
>>
>>>> Please take my PHYSICS TEST, Jan, and if you get 100% in that,
>>>> then you can gMo on to take PHYSICS TEST II (Just one question -
>>>> two answers)
>>
>> You should take my "PHYSICS TEST" too Benj.
>>
>> keith stein
>
>
> So what, Keith? Your theory that light cannot travel in a vacuum is not capable of being disproven.y
My theory is rather that there isn't any perfect vacuum, and all you
need to do to disprove that is produce just one eh!
> No evidence known will ever satisfy you, and no evidence will ever make you think twice. Your theory is not only data-free, it is data-proof, since
> nobody has ever seen a perfect vacuum, and couldn't
prove if they had.
Exactly my point eh!
> Thus, your theory is not really a theory. As you've spun it, it's totally untest-able. It is not science.
and now tell us how we can disprove your alternative that light will
indeed travel in a perfect vacuum, and with the magical property that
the speed of this majical light is the same relative to all inertial
frames of reference ? What evidence is ever going to convince you
what a load of bullshit you beleive Mr. Relativist.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web