Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476145 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-03 12:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 14:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-03 15:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:17 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-05 16:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-11-06 06:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:20 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-06 17:40 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 04:29 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 22:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 13:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 21:19 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 21:15 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 05:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:41 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:46 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 07:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:13 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 10:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 10:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 12:09 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 09:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 19:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 05:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 06:30 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 16:58 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-03 10:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 17:36 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:17 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 06:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-04 17:51 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:42 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 08:45 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 00:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-06 15:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-07 06:27 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-07 21:44 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 05:53 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:53 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:35 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 07:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 07:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-11 08:06 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 14:20 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 14:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-09 00:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-09 00:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-10 22:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 15:04 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 23:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 05:01 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 23:34 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-05 08:26 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-05 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 17:42 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-04 08:36 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:15 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 11:29 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:28 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-14 05:14 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 06:59 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:21 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 06:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-14 23:23 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 07:03 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 19:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-15 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 16:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-16 09:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 20:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 00:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 04:19 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 12:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-17 06:35 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 00:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 09:01 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 19:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-18 20:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:47 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:12 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-19 17:45 -0600
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Lochù Umská <lare@cpi2alwa.cc> - 2018-11-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 12:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 22:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-22 15:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:14 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:18 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 13:54 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-18 23:37 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:57 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-19 06:49 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 10:10 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-19 09:39 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-19 18:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 18:56 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 14:22 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 08:32 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:30 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-21 10:46 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-22 07:31 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 16:07 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-22 18:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-22 05:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:11 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-20 07:44 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:15 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 17:54 +0100
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-20 10:43 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-21 06:58 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 08:08 -0800
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:15 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-21 16:31 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:15 +0000
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2VeHD.172411$I67.122237@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #477118 |
On 15/11/2018 06:31, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT >> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, >> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the >> "medium". > > "You two in the back, waving your hands, what is your name and comment:" > > "My name is Fizeau, and I assure you, the speed of light is most definitely > NOT relative to a moving medium. I demonstrated this personally, and I > confounded physicists for over 50 years" > > "And you?" > > "I'm James Clerk Maxwell, and now my comment is 'what he said'. I knew > of Fizeau's discovery, and from the confusing fact that the speed of light > appeared to be a fixed constant in the 'air' medium and NOT relative to > moving mediums, I realized the speed of light was some sort of physics law. > I did derive from electric and magnetic constants of nature, but I never > could comprehend exactly what was going on. It took some dude with really > bad hair to do that, and all I can do is slap my forehead and say 'why > didn't I think of that?!' So close but so far! Maybe my hair was just too > neat." > > Mr. Fizeau, another comment? > > "Yeah, Mr. Bad Hair also stuck his tongue out at me, taunting me by saying > 'Nah Nah, I know why your moving water experiment confounded people and > even confounds those with smaller minds to this very day, but you don't! > You just don't know how to add speeds!' He is always sticking out his > tongue! But later he did thank me for starting him down the right path." > I guess you would have been one of those 'scientists' who would of been amazed by the "null result" of the MMX, Mr.Moroney. Whereas Maxwell (and I) would have said "The "null result" is exactly what would be predicted from my electromagnetic theory of light eh!" As to the Fizeau experiment with water flowing this way and that through pipes we would suggest that most likely his path length changed slightly (i.e.by a fraction of a wavelength of light) as he switched the direction of the water flow, but whatever we would never have countenanced abandoning Galilean Transforms on the basis of Fizeau's skill as a plumber eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d23dc2e1-2598-4793-9eaa-881c9b3a377b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477124 |
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:55:13 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > Whereas > Maxwell (and I) would have said "The "null result" is exactly what > would be predicted from my electromagnetic theory of light eh!" Yeah, right, lying retard. You failed simple highschool problems and you even failed at your own little riddles you posed in this NG. You are just a deluded wannabe. Grow up, get a life, go (back) to school & get a boyfriend. When you get smart & mature enough, then you can come here in play. Till then, have a little respect and stay out of our yard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 07:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e02bfb67-45cb-4240-9fd9-8c1d4eac320b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477070 |
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 14/11/2018 13:14, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: > > >>> According to SR: > >>> A clock second is a universal interval of time...... > >>> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... > >>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! > > >> Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, > >> Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! > >> SR is BULLSHIT. > >> The LT are BULLSHIT. > >> Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. > > > Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! > > Indeed you are right Mr. Seto, so let me explain: > > 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > physics. > My point is very simple Mr.Seto, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and EINSTEIN > WAS WRONG eh! Not that simple: 1. Maxwell’s medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the inertial frame of SR)....and that’s the origin of Einstein’s P2. 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > > > 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > “aether frame", Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. In addition new proposed experiments to detect absolute motion are available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >but rather than admit that this was because > this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his > imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" > and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why > the "aether frame" could not be detected. > The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected > was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and > neither did his “length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! You were wrong, eh...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iejHD.207175$el1.16547@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #477134 |
On 15/11/2018 15:51, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 14/11/2018 13:14, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 03/11/2018 15:45, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> According to SR: >>>>> A clock second is a universal interval of time...... >>>>> According to the LT and SR math a clock seconds is not a universal interval of time.... >>>>> PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! >> >>>> Well i'm almost certain that i have explained this to you before, >>>> Mr.Seto, but i suppose it won't do any harm to explain once more eh! >>>> SR is BULLSHIT. >>>> The LT are BULLSHIT. >>>> Do hope that is clear now Mr.Seto. >> >>> Assertions are not explanation Mr. Stein !! >> >> Indeed you are right Mr. Seto, so let me explain: >> >> 1. WHY SR IS BULLSHIT >> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, >> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the >> "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the >> problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has >> omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative >> to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. >> Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the >> speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an >> outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical >> physics. >> My point is very simple Mr.Seto, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and EINSTEIN >> WAS WRONG eh! > > Not that simple: > 1. Maxwell’s medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the inertial frame of SR)....and that’s the origin of Einstein’s P2. > 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > NOT THAT COMPLEX, Ken >> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >> “aether frame", > > Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. > In addition new proposed experiments to detect absolute motion are available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >> but rather than admit that this was because >> this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his >> imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" >> and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why >> the "aether frame" could not be detected. >> The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected >> was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and >> neither did his “length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! > > You were wrong, eh... > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GBjHD.230531$Do.32753@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #477134 |
On 15/11/2018 15:51, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 14, Keith Stein wrote: >> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >> “aether frame", > > Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. Right Ken, the E-Matrix eh! > In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. > In addition new proposed experiments to detect absolute motion are available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf modelmechanics eh! >> but rather than admit that this was because >> this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his >> imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" >> and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why >> the "aether frame" could not be detected. >> The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected >> was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and >> neither did his “length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! > > You were wrong, eh... > > Cheeky that eh....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pskid6$nad$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477134 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Not that simple: >1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If >Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake >was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated like sound waves. >2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. >3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest wrt the aether" is quite obviously wrong. >4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total disaster. >> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >> "aether frame", >Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the >E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact >the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether >is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift >experiment; the double-slit experiment. No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE MATH!!! >You were wrong, eh... Not as wrong as you and IRT are wrong, eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-16 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rsCHD.555718$wF4.387348@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #477180 |
On 15/11/2018 19:45, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> Not that simple: > No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > disaster. On 15/11/2018 15:51, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 14, Keith Stein wrote: >> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >> “aether frame", > Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. Right Ken, the E-Matrix eh! > In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. > In addition new proposed experiments to detect absolute motion are available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf modelmechanics eh! >> but rather than admit that this was because >> this imagined "aether frame" did not exists, Lorentz let his >> imagination full reign, and further imagined "length contractions" >> and "time dilations" which in his imagination explained why >> the "aether frame" could not be detected. >> The real reason Lorentz's "aether frame" could not be detected >> was, of course, because it never existed in the first place, and >> neither did his “length contractions" or "time dilations" eh! > > You were wrong, eh... > > Cheeky that eh.... >> You were wrong, eh... > > Not as wrong as you and IRT are wrong, eh? > See no one likes your model mechanics or your E-Matrix Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-16 09:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73f4017f-d974-47ab-9cd1-9cc3b2f7e093@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477180 |
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >Not that simple: > >1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If > >Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake > >was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > > Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. > Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated > like sound waves. > > >2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > > According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. > > >3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > > No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.” Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. > > There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > > >4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > > Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > disaster. That’s because you are a moron......eh! > > >> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > >> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > >> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > >> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > >> "aether frame", > > >Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the > >E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact > >the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether > >is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift > >experiment; the double-slit experiment. > > No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. > All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE > MATH!!! Moron, there are calculations in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-16 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psnaa0$o2a$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477241 |
>> >2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. >> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. >The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >you don't agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn't have. It exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-16 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psncnm$o2a$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477241 |
>> >3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >> > inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in >>which electromagnetic processes take place." >Einstein was wrong. Why do you assert (without any proof or evidence) that Einstein was wrong? > He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies the >MMX (such as the E-Matrix) Where was there any requirement for Einstein to come up with ANY aether at all, much less an aether that satisfied the MMX? Perhaps it was expected by scientists of the time to involve an aether, but there was no such actual requirement. Einstein, instead, thought outside the 'aether' box, and showed that his results were correct if his P1 and P2 were actually true. That is why Einstein is remembered over 100 years after his papers, and while Stupid Ken will quickly be forgotten. >so he invented the inertial frame The inertial frame was invented LONG before Einstein. By Galileo, in fact. > in place of >the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that relative >motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute >motions. Not believing in, or even knowing about, your unsupported assertion is definitely not any sort of failure. >> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest >> wrt the aether" is quite obviously wrong. >The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR >math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of >the aether. Nope, Einstein INDEPENDENTLY derived the Lorentz transform math. And he EXPLICITLY said he wasn't involving any aether. He apparently didn't even know about Lorentz's work. Lorentz must have worked backwards. He tried to derive something that would work in explaining the MMX while keeping the aether concept. He had no idea why his kludge worked, he just knew that it did, somehow. > >4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > disaster. That's because you are a moron......eh! Call me names as much as you want. It won't change the fact that your IRT is a complete total disaster. >>>In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the >>>aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton >>>Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. >> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such >> claims. >> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, >> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US >> THE MATH!!! >Moron, there are calculations in the following link: No, there aren't. Calculations are where you have a formula (such as gravitational attraction, F=GMm/r^2, for example) and you replace the variables M, m, r with example values as well as fixed constants (G), and you calculate a result, the force F. You don't do that. That's because you CAN'T do that. You *still* can't solve (-6)/(-2), much less more complex equations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-17 04:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3322e2c0-5faf-49f6-890c-021320797096@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477277 |
On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > >> > inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > > >> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > >> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > >> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > >> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > >> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > >>which electromagnetic processes take place." > > >Einstein was wrong. > > Why do you assert (without any proof or evidence) that Einstein was wrong? > > > He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies the > >MMX (such as the E-Matrix) > > Where was there any requirement for Einstein to come up with ANY aether > at all, much less an aether that satisfied the MMX? The requirement is that without the specialized aether there is no way to explain: 1. “ACTION AT A DISTANCE”; 2. WHYTHE SPEED OF LIGHT IS ISOTROPIC? 3. WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY? 4. WHY AN OBJECT HAVE MOMENTUM? > > Perhaps it was expected by scientists of the time to involve an aether, > but there was no such actual requirement. See above. > Einstein, instead, thought outside the 'aether' box, and showed that his > results were correct if his P1 and P2 were actually true. No, he didn’t think outside the box. He merely found a different way to describe the aether frame by renaming the aether frame as the inertial frame. That’s why SR have the same math as LET and LET is an aether theory. > > That is why Einstein is remembered over 100 years after his papers, and > while Stupid Ken will quickly be forgotten. So far, I seen no refutation of Model mechanics. > > >so he invented the inertial frame > > The inertial frame was invented LONG before Einstein. By Galileo, in fact. Yeah Einstein just added constant light speed to get SR. BTW, there is no inertial frame exists on earth. > > > in place of > >the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that relative > >motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute > >motions. > > Not believing in, or even knowing about, your unsupported assertion is > definitely not any sort of failure. It’s not an unsupported assertion. No absolute motion, no relative motion. > > >> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > >> wrt the aether" is quite obviously wrong. > > >The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > >math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of > >the aether. > > Nope, Einstein INDEPENDENTLY derived the Lorentz transform math. And he > EXPLICITLY said he wasn't involving any aether. He apparently didn't even > know about Lorentz’s work. He assumed the aether frame properties for his derivation. That’s why he ended up with the LET math. > > Lorentz must have worked backwards. He tried to derive something that > would work in explaining the MMX while keeping the aether concept. He had > no idea why his kludge worked, he just knew that it did, somehow. > > > >4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > > > Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > > disaster. > > That's because you are a moron......eh! > > Call me names as much as you want. It won't change the fact that your IRT > is a complete total disaster. > > >>>In fact the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the > >>>aether is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton > >>>Shift experiment; the double-slit experiment. > > >> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such > >> claims. > >> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > >> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US > >> THE MATH!!! > > >Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > > No, there aren't. > > Calculations are where you have a formula (such as gravitational attraction, > F=GMm/r^2, for example) and you replace the variables M, m, r with example > values as well as fixed constants (G), and you calculate a result, the > force F. You don't do that. That's because you CAN'T do that. You *still* > can't solve (-6)/(-2), much less more complex equations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psue3g$fcu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477309 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >> >> > inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >> >> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >> >> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >> >> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >> >> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >> >> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in >> >>which electromagnetic processes take place." >> >Einstein was wrong. >> Why do you assert (without any proof or evidence) that Einstein was wrong? >> > He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies the >> >MMX (such as the E-Matrix) >> Where was there any requirement for Einstein to come up with ANY aether >> at all, much less an aether that satisfied the MMX? >The requirement is that without the specialized aether there is no way >to explain: >1. "ACTION AT A DISTANCE"; Fields explain it just fine. >2. WHYTHE SPEED OF LIGHT IS ISOTROPIC? Einstein's SR explains that. >3. WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY? GR explain it just fine. Or fields, a different view. >4. WHY AN OBJECT HAVE MOMENTUM? No need for an aether. So, we can conclude Einstein was correct when considering aether to be an obsolete concept well over 100 years ago. >> Perhaps it was expected by scientists of the time to involve an aether, >> but there was no such actual requirement. >See above. So no need for an aether. Gotcha. >> Einstein, instead, thought outside the 'aether' box, and showed that his >> results were correct if his P1 and P2 were actually true. >No, he didn't think outside the box. He certainly did, since the existence of an aether was well established at the time. > He merely found a different way to describe the aether frame by >renaming the aether frame Stupid Ken, what part of: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." don't you understand? No aether in Einstein's SR! None!! >as the inertial frame. That's why SR have the same math as LET and LET is >an aether theory. No, Stupid Ken. Einstein INDEPENDENTLY derived the Lorentz math, WITHOUT ANY AETHER. >> That is why Einstein is remembered over 100 years after his papers, and >> while Stupid Ken will quickly be forgotten. >So far, I seen no refutation of Model mechanics. Except for just about everyone's response to it here! >> >so he invented the inertial frame >> The inertial frame was invented LONG before Einstein. By Galileo, in fact. >Yeah Einstein just added constant light speed to get SR. Constant light speed was known during Einstein's time. What Einstein did was take that as a postulate as well as taking P1 as a postulate (which rules out any special aether frame, BTW) and deriving the math of SR. >> >the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that relative >> >motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute >> >motions. >> Not believing in, or even knowing about, your unsupported assertion is >> definitely not any sort of failure. >It's not an unsupported assertion. No absolute motion, no relative motion. That's an unsupported assertion, Stupid Ken. >> Nope, Einstein INDEPENDENTLY derived the Lorentz transform math. And he >> EXPLICITLY said he wasn't involving any aether. He apparently didn't even >> know about Lorentz's work. >He assumed the aether frame properties for his derivation. No, Stupid Ken. He explicitly stated he wasn't using any aether! That's why he ended up with the LET math. No, he INDEPENDENTLY derived the SR math. The Lorentz work had the right idea for the wrong reason as stated below: >> Lorentz must have worked backwards. He tried to derive something that >> would work in explaining the MMX while keeping the aether concept. He had >> no idea why his kludge worked, he just knew that it did, somehow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-17 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psnlr2$1s3f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477241 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >>> Not that simple: >>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If >>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake >>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. >> >> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. >> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated >> like sound waves. >> >>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. >> >> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. > > The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. > >> >>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >> >> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > which electromagnetic processes take place.” > > Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies > the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place > of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that > relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. > >> >> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest >> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. > > The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > >> >>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. >> >> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total >> disaster. > > That’s because you are a moron......eh! > >> >>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >>>> "aether frame", >> >>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the >>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact >>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether >>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift >>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. >> >> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. >> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, >> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE >> MATH!!! > > Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-17 04:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39adf113-3d78-410b-9fda-0bf40bd8d4d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477292 |
On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >>> Not that simple: > >>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If > >>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake > >>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > >> > >> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. > >> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated > >> like sound waves. > >> > >>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > >> > >> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. > > > > The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > > you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > > exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. > > That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different locations in the stationary ether.....different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. > > There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an inertial frame. So what is your point? > > > > >> > >>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > >> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > >> > >> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > >> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > >> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > >> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > >> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > > which electromagnetic processes take place.” > > > > Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies > > the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place > > of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that > > relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. > > > >> > >> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > >> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. > > > > The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > > math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > > > >> > >>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > >> > >> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > >> disaster. > > > > That’s because you are a moron......eh! > > > >> > >>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > >>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > >>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > >>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > >>>> "aether frame", > >> > >>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the > >>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact > >>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether > >>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift > >>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. > >> > >> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. > >> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > >> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE > >> MATH!!! > > > > Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-17 12:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psp1l7$1nli$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477310 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> Not that simple: >>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If >>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake >>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. >>>> >>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. >>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated >>>> like sound waves. >>>> >>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. >>>> >>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. >>> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. >> >> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. > > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > locations in the stationary ether..... No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all frames. There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL points in space. > different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary > ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. > >> >> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. > > There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you > can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an > inertial frame. So what is your point? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >>>> >>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in >>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” >>> >>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies >>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place >>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that >>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. >>> >>>> >>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest >>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. >>> >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR >>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. >>> >>>> >>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. >>>> >>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total >>>> disaster. >>> >>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! >>> >>>> >>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >>>>>> "aether frame", >>>> >>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the >>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact >>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether >>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift >>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. >>>> >>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. >>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, >>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE >>>> MATH!!! >>> >>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-17 06:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e91b36a7-e6e3-4b4b-988a-97118abc4aea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477312 |
On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:30:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Not that simple: > >>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If > >>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake > >>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > >>>> > >>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. > >>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated > >>>> like sound waves. > >>>> > >>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > >>>> > >>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. > >>> > >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. > >> > >> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. > > > > No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > > locations in the stationary ether..... > > No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > frames. Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his location in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > > There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL > points in space. No, any coordinate system set up in any location in the ether is an ether frame. The ether is stationary while all objects (observers) are moving within it. > > > different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary > > ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. > > > >> > >> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. > > > > There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you > > can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an > > inertial frame. So what is your point? > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > >>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > >>>> > >>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > >>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > >>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > >>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > >>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > >>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” > >>> > >>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies > >>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place > >>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that > >>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > >>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. > >>> > >>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > >>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > >>>> > >>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > >>>> disaster. > >>> > >>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > >>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > >>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > >>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > >>>>>> "aether frame", > >>>> > >>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the > >>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact > >>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether > >>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift > >>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. > >>>> > >>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. > >>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > >>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE > >>>> MATH!!! > >>> > >>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-18 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psqaus$1s64$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477319 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:30:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not that simple: >>>>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If >>>>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake >>>>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. >>>>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated >>>>>> like sound waves. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. >>>>> >>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >>>>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. >>>> >>>> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. >>> >>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different >>> locations in the stationary ether..... >> >> No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all >> frames. > > Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his > location in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. Those reference frames have zero speed relative to each other. Not true for the class of inertial reference frames. > >> >> There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL >> points in space. > > No, any coordinate system set up in any location in the ether is an ether > frame. The ether is stationary while all objects (observers) are moving within it. > >> >>> different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary >>> ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. >>> >>>> >>>> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. >>> >>> There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you >>> can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an >>> inertial frame. So what is your point? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >>>>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >>>>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >>>>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >>>>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >>>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in >>>>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” >>>>> >>>>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies >>>>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place >>>>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that >>>>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest >>>>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR >>>>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total >>>>>> disaster. >>>>> >>>>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >>>>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >>>>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >>>>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >>>>>>>> "aether frame", >>>>>> >>>>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the >>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact >>>>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether >>>>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift >>>>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. >>>>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, >>>>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE >>>>>> MATH!!! >>>>> >>>>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-18 09:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79204f4a-a3fd-4d7d-bd9d-73e2d90b9335@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477366 |
On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:30:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Not that simple: > >>>>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If > >>>>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake > >>>>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. > >>>>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated > >>>>>> like sound waves. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. > >>>>> > >>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >>>>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. > >>>> > >>>> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. > >>> > >>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > >>> locations in the stationary ether..... > >> > >> No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > >> frames. > > > > Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his > > location in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > > Those reference frames have zero speed relative to each other. Not true for > the class of inertial reference frames. Sigh....the observer who set up the reference frame has speed relative to all bodies in the universe. > > > > >> > >> There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL > >> points in space. > > > > No, any coordinate system set up in any location in the ether is an ether > > frame. The ether is stationary while all objects (observers) are moving within it. > > > >> > >>> different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary > >>> ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. > >>> > >>> There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you > >>> can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an > >>> inertial frame. So what is your point? > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > >>>>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > >>>>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > >>>>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > >>>>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > >>>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > >>>>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies > >>>>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place > >>>>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that > >>>>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of their absolute motions. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > >>>>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > >>>>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > >>>>>> disaster. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > >>>>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > >>>>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > >>>>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > >>>>>>>> "aether frame", > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the > >>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact > >>>>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether > >>>>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift > >>>>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. > >>>>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > >>>>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE > >>>>>> MATH!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-18 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pssfhb$16ac$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477409 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:30:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not that simple: >>>>>>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If >>>>>>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake >>>>>>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. >>>>>>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated >>>>>>>> like sound waves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If >>>>>>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is >>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. >>>>> >>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different >>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... >>>> >>>> No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all >>>> frames. >>> >>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his >>> location in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. >> >> Those reference frames have zero speed relative to each other. Not true for >> the class of inertial reference frames. > > Sigh....the observer who set up the reference frame has speed relative to > all bodies in the universe. But not relative to any other ether frame. This is what distinguishes the ether frame from inertial frames. Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame cannot. >> >>> >>>> >>>> There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL >>>> points in space. >>> >>> No, any coordinate system set up in any location in the ether is an ether >>> frame. The ether is stationary while all objects (observers) are moving within it. >>> >>>> >>>>> different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary >>>>> ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. >>>>> >>>>> There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you >>>>> can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an >>>>> inertial frame. So what is your point? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the >>>>>>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? >>>>>>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' >>>>>>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed >>>>>>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special >>>>>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in >>>>>>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies >>>>>>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place >>>>>>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that >>>>>>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of >>>>>>> their absolute motions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest >>>>>>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR >>>>>>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total >>>>>>>> disaster. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether >>>>>>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic >>>>>>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined >>>>>>>>>> "aether frame", >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the >>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact >>>>>>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether >>>>>>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift >>>>>>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. >>>>>>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, >>>>>>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE >>>>>>>> MATH!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-18 20:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5398e964-9a63-4949-a87a-31cbc13e93d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477425 |
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 2:45:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:15:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 7:30:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 7:02:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not that simple: > >>>>>>>>> 1. Maxwell's medium was the aether....not air as you seem to suggest. If > >>>>>>>>> Maxwell meant that the medium was air then he was wrong. You mistake > >>>>>>>>> was that you treated Maxwell as an infallible person. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Not sure how established an aether concept was at Maxwell's time. > >>>>>>>> Remember, aether was invented because scientists thought light propogated > >>>>>>>> like sound waves. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Light travel at constant speed relative to the aether. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> According to which theory? Not according to SR, of course. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. If > >>>>>>> you don’t agree then name a property of the inertial frame that is > >>>>>>> exclusive to the inertial frame that the aether frame doesn’t have. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s easy. The uniqueness of the ether frame. There’s only one. > >>>>> > >>>>> No idiot, you can set up an infinite number of ether frames at different > >>>>> locations in the stationary ether..... > >>>> > >>>> No you can’t. Frames have infinite extent. No boundary. Any point is in all > >>>> frames. > >>> > >>> Yes you can......any observer can set up a coordinate system at his > >>> location in the ether. Any point is in his coordinate system. > >> > >> Those reference frames have zero speed relative to each other. Not true for > >> the class of inertial reference frames. > > > > Sigh....the observer who set up the reference frame has speed relative to > > all bodies in the universe. > > But not relative to any other ether frame. The observer is moving in the ether frame. > This is what distinguishes the ether frame from inertial frames. Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. > > Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame > cannot. How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? Are you just making up stuff as you go? > >>>> > >>>> There is only ONE ether frame, in which the ether is stationary at ALL > >>>> points in space. > >>> > >>> No, any coordinate system set up in any location in the ether is an ether > >>> frame. The ether is stationary while all objects (observers) are moving within it. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> different observers merely set up a coordinate system in the stationary > >>>>> ether at his location and viola you have an inertial frame. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are an infinite number of inertial frames. Certainly more than one. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is an infinite number of locations in the stationary ether that you > >>>>> can set up a coordinate system and such coordinate system is called an > >>>>> inertial frame. So what is your point? > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Every SR observer imagine that he is at rest wrt the aether (the > >>>>>>>> inertial frame of SR)....and that's the origin of Einstein's P2. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, you are lying. Why do you lie? > >>>>>>>> Einstein explicitly wrote: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' > >>>>>>>> will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed > >>>>>>>> will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special > >>>>>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in > >>>>>>> which electromagnetic processes take place.” > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Einstein was wrong. He failed to come up with an aether that satisfies > >>>>>>> the MMX (such as the E-Matrix) so he invented the inertial frame in place > >>>>>>> of the aether frame. But he failed again: he failed to realize that > >>>>>>> relative motion between two bodies is the vector difference of > >>>>>>> their absolute motions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is no aether being used in SR, so a statement like "he is at rest > >>>>>>>> wrt the aether” is quite obviously wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The inertial frame of SR is just another name for the aether frame. SR > >>>>>>> math copied the LET math and the LET math is based on the existence of the aether. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Therefore the speed of light is constant wrt every SR observer. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Does not follow. This is just one reason why your IRT is a complete total > >>>>>>>> disaster. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That’s because you are a moron......eh! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. WHY THE LT ARE BULLSHIT > >>>>>>>>>> Lorentz imagined a fixed frame of reference, the "aether > >>>>>>>>>> frame", in which light moved with its characteristic > >>>>>>>>>> velocity c. All experiments failed to detect this imagined > >>>>>>>>>> "aether frame", > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because physicists failed to realize that a structured aether like the > >>>>>>>>> E-Matrix can indeed give constant light speed in all directions. In fact > >>>>>>>>> the following past experiments did detected absolute motion if the aether > >>>>>>>>> is the E-Matrix: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift > >>>>>>>>> experiment; the double-slit experiment. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. You NEVER provided ANY calculations to support such claims. > >>>>>>>> All you did was try to horn in on others' successes in explaining them, > >>>>>>>> with empty claims "I can do that, too!". If you really could, SHOW US THE > >>>>>>>> MATH!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, there are calculations in the following link: > >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web