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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 06:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40tID.231157$QD7.226505@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #477469 |
On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: > How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psufcp$fcu$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477472 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: >> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? >Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna >give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! Too late!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 10:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cbb1ab8-77b5-4410-9289-45b1066de2db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477472 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: > > > How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? > > Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna > give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! > > keith stein That’s a good advice for you....eh! Come back when you learn the basic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 17:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8fadnVzIj_iX1m7GnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #477510 |
On 11/19/18 12:12 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: >>> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? >> Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna >> give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! > > That’s a good advice for you....eh! > Come back when you learn the basic[s]. Remarkable. kenseto finally said something sensible. Of course he himself is unable to follow his own advice.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lochù Umská <lare@cpi2alwa.cc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psviir$5hh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477545 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/19/18 12:12 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: >>>> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? >>> Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna give >>> 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! >> >> That’s a good advice for you....eh! >> Come back when you learn the basic[s]. > > Remarkable. kenseto finally said something sensible. Of course he > himself is unable to follow his own advice.... Nearly incorrect. The basics never suffices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 12:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <184fbb04-cf15-4d0c-acf6-4f9109e34e61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477545 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/19/18 12:12 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: > >>> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? > >> Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna > >> give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! > > > > That’s a good advice for you....eh! > > Come back when you learn the basic[s]. > > Remarkable. kenseto finally said something sensible. Of course he > himself is unable to follow his own advice.... > > Tom Roberts I reject the fantasy basics of the failed theory of SR and I embrace the real basics of the superior theory of IRT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt7c8o$1alk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477829 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 11/19/18 12:12 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: >>>>> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? >>>> Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna >>>> give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! >>> >>> That’s a good advice for you....eh! >>> Come back when you learn the basic[s]. >> >> Remarkable. kenseto finally said something sensible. Of course he >> himself is unable to follow his own advice.... >> >> Tom Roberts > > I reject the fantasy basics of the failed theory of SR and I embrace the > real basics of the superior theory of IRT. > I think you know you reject all physics, not just SR. Even basic high school physics. Even 400 year old Newtonian physics. That’s your excuse for not learning a lick of it. It really isn’t about whether you reject it or not. It’s about whether you know enough about it to make a sensible decision. You don’t. You justbmade that choice from a place of abject ignorance. And I know why too. Exactly why. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 15:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4d404ec7-1f8f-414e-9771-ce15c74e44f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477846 |
On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 11/19/18 12:12 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:47:30 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> On 19/11/2018 04:54, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? > >>>> Oh dear Ken. You really do need to learn the basics. You gonna > >>>> give 'crackpots' a bad name if you carry on like that eh! > >>> > >>> That’s a good advice for you....eh! > >>> Come back when you learn the basic[s]. > >> > >> Remarkable. kenseto finally said something sensible. Of course he > >> himself is unable to follow his own advice.... > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > I reject the fantasy basics of the failed theory of SR and I embrace the > > real basics of the superior theory of IRT. > > > > I think you know you reject all physics, not just SR. Even basic high > school physics. Even 400 year old Newtonian physics. That’s your excuse for > not learning a lick of it. > > It really isn’t about whether you reject it or not. > > It’s about whether you know enough about it to make a sensible decision. > You don’t. You justbmade that choice from a place of abject ignorance. And > I know why too. Exactly why. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables A second is about human order...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psucvh$4gj$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477469 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > 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 KIDDING ME? This is the whole point of inertial reference frames, frames that are in relative motion. This is what Einstein’s paper is all about! You have absolutely no idea anymore what’s going on. > 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 > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10391252-8bad-4b9b-85fb-6fd5a84bae68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477482 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:14:29 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > 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 KIDDING ME? > This is the whole point of inertial reference frames, frames that are in > relative motion. This is what Einstein’s paper is all about! A frame (a coordinate system ) doesn’t moving......the observer and the observed objector are moving within the coordinate system. > > You have absolutely no idea anymore what’s going on. > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psva7c$1ove$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #477518 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:14:29 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> 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 KIDDING ME? >> This is the whole point of inertial reference frames, frames that are in >> relative motion. This is what Einstein’s paper is all about! > > A frame (a coordinate system ) doesn’t moving...... See? You have no idea on earth what a frame is. https://youtu.be/bJMYoj4hHqU That may help but it’s a half hour long and that may be longer than your attention span Yes, inertial frames move relative to each other. That’s the point. > the observer and the observed objector are moving within the coordinate system. Object A is at rest in frame 1 and is moving in frame 2. Object B is at rest in frame 2 and moving in frame 1. Object A is moving relative to object B. From the information there, is frame 1 moving relative to frame 2? > >> >> You have absolutely no idea anymore what’s going on. >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psufbl$fcu$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477469 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 2:45:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> 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. So what? The aether frame is stationary relative to all other aether frames, by definition. >> This is what distinguishes the ether frame from inertial frames. >Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. A location is not a frame, Stupid Ken. A frame, by definition contains all locations. >> 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? What, Stupid Ken?? You don't even know what an inertial frame is? One property is that all inertial frames are in CONSTANT relative motion wrt all other inertial frames, no acceleration. I said CONSTANT, not zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 09:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d48725c4-86bb-4275-aa5c-0f70a0b5b517@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477487 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 2:45:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> 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. > > So what? The aether frame is stationary relative to all other aether > frames, by definition. No idiot since no observer is at rest in the aether then there is no such thing as the aether frame. SR’s inertial frame assumes the non-existing aether frame (the aether coordinate system). > > >> This is what distinguishes the ether frame from inertial frames. > > >Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. > > A location is not a frame, Stupid Ken. A frame, by definition contains all > locations. It is when the observer setup a coordinate system at that location....that’s exactly what SR’s inertial frame means. > > >> 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? > > What, Stupid Ken?? You don't even know what an inertial frame is? > One property is that all inertial frames are in CONSTANT relative motion > wrt all other inertial frames, no acceleration. I said CONSTANT, not zero. Moron, the aether is in a state of absolute rest. An Observer moving within it set up a coordinate system at his location and this is called an inertial frame. In SR, the coordinate system is not moving, the observer and the observed objects are moving within the coordinate system and this motion is called relative motion..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psv08p$c3b$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477508 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >The observer is moving in the ether frame. >> So what? The aether frame is stationary relative to all other aether >> frames, by definition. >No idiot since no observer is at rest in the aether then there is no such >thing as the aether frame. You just said "The observer is moving in the ether frame" a couple replies back! You are very confused. > SR's inertial frame assumes the non-existing aether frame (the aether > coordinate system). I'll agree the aether frame doesn't exist since there is no aether, but you are still quite confused. You are the one who dreamed up this nonexistent aether frame. >> >> This is what distinguishes the ether frame from inertial frames. >> >Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. >> A location is not a frame, Stupid Ken. A frame, by definition contains all >> locations. >It is when the observer setup a coordinate system at that location....that's >exactly what SR's inertial frame means. No, Stupid Ken. "Inertial frame" means a frame without any acceleration. It is in inertial motion relative to all other inertial frames. You need to learn SR some day. >> >> 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? >> What, Stupid Ken?? You don't even know what an inertial frame is? >> One property is that all inertial frames are in CONSTANT relative motion >> wrt all other inertial frames, no acceleration. I said CONSTANT, not zero. >Moron, the aether is in a state of absolute rest. There is no "absolute rest" or aether in SR. > An Observer moving within it set up a coordinate system at his location >and this is called an inertial frame. As long as the observer is moving inertially, OK. > In SR, the coordinate system is not moving, the observer and the >observed objects are moving within the coordinate system How did the observer who set up his frame start moving within it? Why didn't he set up a frame in which he is stationary?? And "not moving" relative to what??? Logically, the observer should set up a frame stationary relative to himself!! > and this motion is called relative motion.. No, relative motion is if A is stationary in Frame 1 and sees B moving, but B is stationary in Frame 2 and sees A moving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 06:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82de3fa3-2637-4909-8994-7850639a6757@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477469 |
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 11:54:14 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. Idiot ken, a location is not a frame. So you are saying that a point is a line? Take more meds! > How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? You never seen cars pass by you? The car (frame) is moving wrt the ground frame; is moving wrt the other cars frames. They are moving wrt each other. Take more meds idiot ken, because your dosage is too weak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 10:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c6993795-fef5-4b48-a543-722a9a6e8c20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477496 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 9:58:35 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 11:54:14 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > Any location in the ether is an inertial frame. > > Idiot ken, a location is not a frame. So you are saying that a point is a line? Take more meds! It is when you set up a coordinate system with the origin in that location. > > > > How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? > > You never seen cars pass by you? The car (frame) is moving wrt the ground frame; is moving wrt the other cars frames. They are moving wrt each other. > Take more meds idiot ken, because your dosage is too weak. The car observer says that the ground observer is moving wrt me or moving in the coordinate system he set-up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9175dc6d-f25e-4462-bf5a-754a4ac3aba6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477520 |
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:28:51 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 9:58:35 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > Idiot ken, a location is not a frame. > > It is when you set up a coordinate system with the origin > in that location. Take a ruler in your hand and move it about. Is the ruler changing position in your room? Is its left end changing position in your room? Now this same ruler that you are moving about, does its "0" stay at its "0" ? Does the "1 mm" mark stay next to its "0" mark as you are moving it? Your room is one frame. The ruler is another frame. The ruler frame can move about in the room frame. Sometimes their origins can coinsie, and sometimes they dont. But the "0" mark of the ruler always displays "0" on itself. > > > How do inertial frames (coordinate systems) move wrt each other? > > > > You never seen cars pass by you? The car (frame) is moving > > wrt the ground frame... > > The car observer says that the ground observer is moving wrt me Any coordinate of the car frame says that all coordinates of the ground frame is moving: The driver says that the ground, trees, lakes are moving wrt him (meaning, his frame). Very simple concept. Dont forget that an 'observer' implicitly means his coordinate system (frame). Frames can move wrt each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-18 23:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50625a15-331a-4db8-b1a2-0fff24d9ed22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477425 |
On Sunday, 18 November 2018 20:45:51 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame > cannot. Tell me, poor halfbrain, will you cite many experiments confirming that it can't? Will you cite one, at least?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psufg1$fcu$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #477475 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Sunday, 18 November 2018 20:45:51 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame >> cannot. >Tell me, poor halfbrain, will you cite many >experiments confirming that it can't? Will >you cite one, at least? Since the aether doesn't exist, no experiment can confirm anything about it, other than it doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-19 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fcea5bc2-28eb-4d24-b806-b230693a2197@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #477489 |
On Monday, 19 November 2018 14:57:23 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Sunday, 18 November 2018 20:45:51 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Inertial frames can have speed relative to each other. The ether frame > >> cannot. > > >Tell me, poor halfbrain, will you cite many > >experiments confirming that it can't? Will > >you cite one, at least? > > Since the aether doesn't exist, no experiment can confirm anything about > it And your mad claims that your moronic physics makes no claim without an experimental confirmation - are obvious, ordinary lies. Of course. , other than it doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web