Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476484 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-07 11:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-12 21:41 +0000 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 75 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 11:11 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-07 03:24 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 15:13 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 10:09 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 17:34 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-07 20:26 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 17:39 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-08 00:51 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-11-08 23:45 +1100
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 13:20 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 19:34 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 11:42 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 20:10 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 06:52 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:23 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-12 04:29 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 20:00 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-12 14:51 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:32 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 11:25 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:37 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:03 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:40 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 19:38 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 22:16 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 17:34 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:16 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 15:00 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:44 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 03:08 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 10:18 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 20:06 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 02:41 +0100
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:33 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:42 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 05:49 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 20:04 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-11 12:13 +0100
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 03:23 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-11 15:49 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 21:01 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 21:13 -0500
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 22:41 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 14:03 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 08:39 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 02:36 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 15:06 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 17:21 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 09:47 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 20:06 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:20 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 09:53 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:33 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:41 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:44 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-11 20:14 -0600
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 07:42 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:29 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:29 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:49 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:25 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 07:25 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:50 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 10:46 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:55 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 12:05 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 23:43 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-12 10:45 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-12 19:11 +0000
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 13:05 -0800
Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-12 21:41 +0000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ODjGD.114307$Tt4.43961@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #476885 |
On 12/11/2018 07:42, Keith Stein wrote:> On 12/11/2018 02:14, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 11/11/18 11:21 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > You teach BULLSHIT and LIES, Mr.Roberts. >> Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) > LIES, and you know it. I told you often enough eh! > There was no E0 or mu0 in Maxwell's Theory. >> is relative to the medium (i.e. its rest frame). BUT IN HIS DAY >> "MEDIUM" MEANT "THAT WHICH IS WAVING", and for light in Maxwell's >> theory that was the aether. > MORE LIES. > You can't possibly believe that Maxwell thought that when light > passes through paraffin wax (one of Maxwell's actual examples of > a medium)the wax was waving. Maxwell knew perfectly well that it > was the electric and magnetic fields which do the waving. That's > why he called them "electro-magnetic waves" eh! > >> Einstein noticed the inconsistency in Maxwell's theory well before >> 1905: with the Galilean transform one can consider an inertial frame >> in which a given light beam is at rest. Presumably then it would >> appear as a static "wave", as if its undulations had been cut out of >> cardboard. But that is INCONSISTENT with the wave equation derived >> from Maxwell's equations -- such waves MUST be moving with speed >> 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) [#]. > > BULLSHIT. > Maxwell's wave equation is of exactly the same form as the wave > equation for sound. If you travel through the medium at the > speed of sound in the same direction as a sound wave, then the > pressure at the point you are at is constant, so the wave disappears, > and similarly if you travel through the medium at the speed of light, > in the same direction as the light wave, then the electric and > magnetic fields at the point you are at are constant. There is > NO INCONSISTENCY - that is what happens eh! > >> >> This was of course resolved by using the Lorentz transform between >> inertial frames. In particular, that means it simply is not possible >> to have an inertial frame in which the light beam "is at rest". > > BULLSHIT. > >> [#] This can be reconciled, because Maxwell's original theory >> had additional fields related to the motion of the aether. > LIES > >> The equations are NOT invariant under Galilean transforms, > BULLSHIT AND LIES > > keith stein > >> Tom Roberts > On 12/11/2018 17:29, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) >> LIES, and you know it. I told you often enough eh! >> There was no E0 or mu0 in Maxwell's Theory. > >> MORE LIES. > >> BULLSHIT. > >> BULLSHIT. > >> LIES > >> BULLSHIT AND LIES > > I thought you were a fan of Maxwell. Why do you keep stating what he > said was "BULLSHIT" and "LIES"? I was actually referring to the words of Mr. Tom Robert's, Mr.Moroney. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psclg8$nn3$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476894 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/11/2018 17:29, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) >>> LIES, and you know it. I told you often enough eh! >>> There was no E0 or mu0 in Maxwell's Theory. >> >>> MORE LIES. >> >>> BULLSHIT. >> >>> BULLSHIT. >> >>> LIES >> >>> BULLSHIT AND LIES >> >> I thought you were a fan of Maxwell. Why do you keep stating what he >> said was "BULLSHIT" and "LIES"? >I was actually referring to the words of Mr. Tom Robert's, Mr.Moroney. What you are calling "BULLSHIT AND LIES" is Tom Roberts writing what James Clerk Maxwell wrote in his works, so by calling Roberts a liar when writing that, you are calling Maxwell a liar. Of course Maxwell isn't here to correct you himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscd30$rpk$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476838 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >On 11/11/18 11:21 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> [... lots of correct stuff] >> No, Maxwell noticed that a speed came out of the equation >> v = 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), and that value does NOT depend on the motion of any >> medium. It doesn't depend on the motion of anything, only on what he knew >> as the electric and magnetic constants. Since this speed depends ONLY on >> fixed constants, it must ALSO be a constant, so it CANNOT depend on the >> motion of anything. >This is incorrect. Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), is >relative to the medium (i.e. its rest frame). BUT IN HIS DAY "MEDIUM" >MEANT "THAT WHICH IS WAVING", and for light in Maxwell's theory that was >the aether. >Einstein noticed the inconsistency in Maxwell's theory well before 1905: >with the Galilean transform one can consider an inertial frame in which >a given light beam is at rest. Presumably then it would appear as a >static "wave", as if its undulations had been cut out of cardboard. But >that is INCONSISTENT with the wave equation derived from Maxwell's >equations -- such waves MUST be moving with speed 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) [#]. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. First you state that in Maxwell's theory the speed of light would be c relative to the aether, but then that light must move at c no matter what (relative to anything/everything).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 07:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3a788553-a387-4dc9-8d0f-3285a0f16dbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476775 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 11/11/2018 02:36, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote: > > > >>> he knew that light travels slower > >>> in water then in air. > > > >> but did he [Einstein] also know that when light travels in water, > >> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ? > > > > Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course > > he knew that claim was false! > > > So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? > RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?speed All light speeds are relative to the aether (the E-Matrix). In the water the aether (the E-Matrix) is curved than in air and thus transmits light at a slower speed than in air. When the light reemerges from the water it will regain its speed c....only a continuous aether like the E-Matrix can do that. BTW this is a good proof of the existence of the aether (the E-Matrix). Please read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false! > > > >> did he also know that when light travels in air, > >> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE Aair ? > > > > And again, he wasn't stupid, > > Indeed he must of been a genius, > to achieve the position he achieved. > Especially as he hadn't got a clue > about PHYSICS eh! > > > >> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh! > > > He knew of limits. > > Not of his own he didn't. > > > He'd likely would have been impressed how the > > speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the > > theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum, > > The "theoretical speed of light" is derived from Maxwell's Theory, > and Maxwell's Theory give the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > Maxwell could not of been clearer, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", he wrote,in big > crackpot capitals, just like that eh! > > > that a photon traveling > > the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photon > > by less than an atomic diameter at that distance! > > > The point is Mr.Moroney that there isn't any "perfect vacuum", and > in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling > through. > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscehv$rpk$8@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476868 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? >> RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?speed >All light speeds are relative to the aether (the E-Matrix). Stupid Ken, nobody cares about your failed Ematrix crapola. We're discussing reality here. Aether has been unnecessary in physics for well over 100 years now. Now run along, and come back when you have a real theory to show us. >In the water the aether (the E-Matrix) is curved than in air and thus trans= >mits light at a slower speed than in air. When the light reemerges from the= > water it will regain its speed c....only a continuous aether like the E-Ma= >trix can do that. BTW this is a good proof of the existence of the aether (= >the E-Matrix). Please read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf >>=20 >> > Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false! >> >=20 >> >> did he also know that when light travels in air, >> >> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE Aair ? >>=20 >>=20 >> > And again, he wasn't stupid, >>=20 >> Indeed he must of been a genius, >> to achieve the position he achieved. >> Especially as he hadn't got a clue >> about PHYSICS eh! >>=20 >>=20 >> >> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh! >>=20 >> > He knew of limits. >>=20 >> Not of his own he didn't. >>=20 >> > He'd likely would have been impressed how the >> > speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the >> > theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum, >>=20 >> The "theoretical speed of light" is derived from Maxwell's Theory, >> and Maxwell's Theory give the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. >> Maxwell could not of been clearer, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", he wrote,in big= >=20 >> crackpot capitals, just like that eh! >>=20 >> > that a photon traveling >> > the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photo= >n >> > by less than an atomic diameter at that distance! >>=20 >>=20 >> The point is Mr.Moroney that there isn't any "perfect vacuum", and >> in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling >> through. >>=20 >> keith stein >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <209fa6b9-a27d-49e6-8dbc-9af0b7d3b9f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476888 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? > >> RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?speed > > >All light speeds are relative to the aether (the E-Matrix). > > Stupid Ken, nobody cares about your failed Ematrix crapola. We're > discussing reality here. Aether has been unnecessary in physics for well > over 100 years now. Now run along, and come back when you have a real > theory to show us. That’s because you are a moron.....no wonder your name is Moron_y. > > >In the water the aether (the E-Matrix) is curved than in air and thus trans= > >mits light at a slower speed than in air. When the light reemerges from the= > > water it will regain its speed c....only a continuous aether like the E-Ma= > >trix can do that. BTW this is a good proof of the existence of the aether (= > >the E-Matrix). Please read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > >>=20 > >> > Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false! > >> >=20 > >> >> did he also know that when light travels in air, > >> >> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE Aair ? > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> > And again, he wasn't stupid, > >>=20 > >> Indeed he must of been a genius, > >> to achieve the position he achieved. > >> Especially as he hadn't got a clue > >> about PHYSICS eh! > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> >> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh! > >>=20 > >> > He knew of limits. > >>=20 > >> Not of his own he didn't. > >>=20 > >> > He'd likely would have been impressed how the > >> > speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the > >> > theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum, > >>=20 > >> The "theoretical speed of light" is derived from Maxwell's Theory, > >> and Maxwell's Theory give the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. > >> Maxwell could not of been clearer, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", he wrote,in big= > >=20 > >> crackpot capitals, just like that eh! > >>=20 > >> > that a photon traveling > >> > the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photo= > >n > >> > by less than an atomic diameter at that distance! > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> The point is Mr.Moroney that there isn't any "perfect vacuum", and > >> in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling > >> through. > >>=20 > >> keith stein > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psclr7$nn3$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476899 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? >> >> RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?speed >> >All light speeds are relative to the aether (the E-Matrix). >> Stupid Ken, nobody cares about your failed Ematrix crapola. We're >> discussing reality here. Aether has been unnecessary in physics for well >> over 100 years now. Now run along, and come back when you have a real >> theory to show us. >That's because you are a moron.....no wonder your name is Moron_y. Stupid Ken, your obsolete "aether" crap isn't wrong because of my name, it is wrong because your failed IRT and Ematrix crapola are complete, total, absolute failures which cannot even make predictions. Now run along and see if you can create a REAL theory of physics which can make REAL predictions some day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05231f17-50f9-411b-b558-4eb7676a99b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476912 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 2:55:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 12:50:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> >> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? > >> >> RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?speed > > >> >All light speeds are relative to the aether (the E-Matrix). > > >> Stupid Ken, nobody cares about your failed Ematrix crapola. We're > >> discussing reality here. Aether has been unnecessary in physics for well > >> over 100 years now. Now run along, and come back when you have a real > >> theory to show us. > > >That's because you are a moron.....no wonder your name is Moron_y. > > Stupid Ken, your obsolete "aether" crap isn't wrong because of my name, > it is wrong because your failed IRT and Ematrix crapola are complete, > total, absolute failures which cannot even make predictions. > > Now run along and see if you can create a REAL theory of physics which can > make REAL predictions some day. Moron-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f8abbdd-6d05-4f23-bb0b-17e8ef71622d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476547 |
> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches > of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that > in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE. > Stein? What is the proof by measurement? And even if it were true and its not gas would have holes as a medium... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <N83GD.1162743$621.19018@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #476819 |
On 11/11/2018 23:29, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > >> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches >> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that >> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE. >> > > Stein? What is the proof by measurement? > And even if it were true and its not > gas would have holes as a medium... > You can't see the wood (the medium) for the trees (the atoms) Mitchell. keith stein > Mitchell Raemsch >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 10:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0624a390-f28a-4d33-90dd-524a9db9723e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476823 |
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 11/11/2018 23:29, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches > >> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that > >> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE. > >> > > > > Stein? What is the proof by measurement? > > And even if it were true and its not > > gas would have holes as a medium... > > > > You can't see the wood (the medium) for the > trees (the atoms) Mitchell. Atoms(gas) would not be a continuous medium... Mitchell Raemsch > > > keith stein > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_bkGD.214505$e55.68259@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #476898 |
On 12/11/2018 18:45, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> You can't see the wood (the medium) for the >> trees (the atoms) Mitchell. > Atoms(gas) would not be a continuous medium... Atoms do not, will not, can not, comprehend the message,Mitchell. It is the medium, or average, that carries the message eh! keith stein > Mitchell Raemsch >> keith stein >>> Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscj9k$1rso$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476903 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 12/11/2018 18:45, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> You can't see the wood (the medium) for the trees (the atoms) >>> Mitchell. > >> Atoms(gas) would not be a continuous medium... > > Atoms do not, will not, can not, comprehend the message,Mitchell. > It is the medium, or average, that carries the message eh! Nobody ever have seen, will see, an atom. Why, because as they cornered pretend "the atom is mostly entirely empty space". You can't possibly expect to see empty space. Simply Class Analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c79fd72-4b01-47c8-b4cf-57c90e3a6df3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476904 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 11:11:52 AM UTC-8, Gaston Castaneda wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: > > > On 12/11/2018 18:45, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > > >>> You can't see the wood (the medium) for the trees (the atoms) > >>> Mitchell. > > > >> Atoms(gas) would not be a continuous medium... > > > > Atoms do not, will not, can not, comprehend the message,Mitchell. > > It is the medium, or average, that carries the message eh! > > Nobody ever have seen, will see, an atom. Why, because as they cornered > pretend "the atom is mostly entirely empty space". You can't possibly > expect to see empty space. Simply Class Analysis. Just learn this, stop making stuff up. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscs20$bvp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476924 |
JanPB wrote: > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 11:11:52 AM UTC-8, Gaston Castaneda > wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >> >> > On 12/11/2018 18:45, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 3:43:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> > >> >>> You can't see the wood (the medium) for the trees (the atoms) >> >>> Mitchell. >> > >> >> Atoms(gas) would not be a continuous medium... >> > >> > Atoms do not, will not, can not, comprehend the message,Mitchell. >> > It is the medium, or average, that carries the message eh! >> >> Nobody ever have seen, will see, an atom. Why, because as they cornered >> pretend "the atom is mostly entirely empty space". You can't possibly >> expect to see empty space. Simply Class Analysis. > > Just learn this, stop making stuff up. good idea, you learn that. Machines depicting atoms like balls, are just made-up stuff representation.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web