Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #579460 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:45 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 15:53 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 18:54 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:22 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:06 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-22 13:42 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:18 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 16:16 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:25 +0200
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:45 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 04:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:22 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:39 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:34 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 12:55 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 14:56 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:05 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:24 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:31 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:35 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 18:14 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 20:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:35 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:02 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:40 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:18 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:01 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:26 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:32 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:31 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 10:54 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:21 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 14:16 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 06:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:46 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 13:37 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:01 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:00 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:23 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:09 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:24 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 01:30 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:19 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:49 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:29 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 22:59 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:41 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 17:49 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:26 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:22 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:32 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:34 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:10 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:40 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:03 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 14:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:08 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:12 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:47 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:41 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 09:18 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:25 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:07 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 16:50 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:58 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 21:39 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 17:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 02:53 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:51 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:32 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:02 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 23:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57466e35$0$62597$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #580511 |
On 05/25/2016 07:01 PM, HVAC wrote: > Odd Bodkin > On 5/25/2016 3:56 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/25/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>>>>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >>>>>> >>>>>> Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. >>>>> >>>>> Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You >>>>> have this weird notion that only material things can have physical >>>>> properties. >>>> >>>> This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. >>> >>> Uh, no. The concept of spacetime has been on the books since 1908, Ken. >> >> The concept of the ether is centuries before 1908....so what is your point? > > The ether of pre-1908 is different than your E-matrix. > >> >>> That is long, long, long before your E-matrix was dreamed up. >>> If anyone did any renaming, it was you that renamed spacetime to be the >>> E-matrix. >> >> The E Matrix is a form of ether.....so what is your point? > > A different ether than the pre-1908 ether. > >> >>> >>>> You said that spacetime >>>> can have properties like any material medium >>> >>> And other nonmaterial things can have properties too. >>> >>>> but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. >>>> Sad.... >>> >>> Not particularly sad that both material things and nonmaterial things >>> have physical properties. Just because spacetime is one of the >>> nonmaterial things that has properties, like a bunch of other >>> nonmaterial things, isn't sad at all. >> >> You don't want to admit that spacetime is a material thing that have >> properties so you invented that spacetime is a nonmaterial thing that >> have properties. > > No, I didn't invent that. That was put forward in 1908 for spacetime. > Other nonmaterial things with properties have been around for two or > three centuries. > >> Can you give me another example of a nonmaterial >> thing that have properties? > > Sure. Energy. > Electric fields. > Light. > Magnetic fields. > X-rays. > Heat. > Gluons. > > Where have you been? > ---------- > > Hey Odd > What is your definition of material and what is your definition of thing? > Sorry, but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play with you today!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 20:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y4OdnTHZ7MJDzNvKnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580479 |
On 5/25/16 3:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > The concept of the ether is centuries before 1908....so what is your point? Einstein wrote in 1905, "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". No need for an ether in relativity, Seto. That's the point. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 10:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57446b18$0$51511$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #580037 |
On 05/24/2016 07:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you >> Srians claimed. > > Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real > and anything that's not material you don't think is real. You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no matter how it conflicts with reality. Fantasy is real, Reality is what they tell you it is. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 10:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni1rht$1s9l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580074 |
On 5/24/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: > On 05/24/2016 07:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you >>> Srians claimed. >> >> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. > > You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever > someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no > matter how it conflicts with reality. What reality are you talking about, Ben? The one you dreamed up in your head? The physical reality of things other than material is not a "modern physics" product -- that's been known for two or three centuries. Where have you been? You see, Ben, things aren't false just because they disagree with YOUR personal view of the world. > Fantasy is real, Reality is what > they tell you it is. Got it? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57449a7f$0$21143$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #580089 |
On 05/24/2016 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: >> On 05/24/2016 07:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you >>>> Srians claimed. >>> >>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >> >> You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever >> someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no >> matter how it conflicts with reality. > > What reality are you talking about, Ben? The one you dreamed up in your > head? The physical reality of things other than material is not a > "modern physics" product -- that's been known for two or three > centuries. Where have you been? I don't do seances, Odd. (No matter what HVAC I do) WE all know that in your Lawyer world, fantasy is reality and vice versa. It's all in the words and not the actions. > You see, Ben, things aren't false just because they disagree with YOUR > personal view of the world. They are if my view agrees with observations and measurements rather than your establishment stories and religious dogma. >> Fantasy is real, Reality is what >> they tell you it is. Got it? Yep. Sums up Odd's "science".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni2993$j2q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580143 |
On 5/24/2016 1:16 PM, benj wrote: > On 05/24/2016 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 05/24/2016 07:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you >>>>> Srians claimed. >>>> >>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >>> >>> You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever >>> someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no >>> matter how it conflicts with reality. >> >> What reality are you talking about, Ben? The one you dreamed up in your >> head? The physical reality of things other than material is not a >> "modern physics" product -- that's been known for two or three >> centuries. Where have you been? > > I don't do seances, Odd. (No matter what HVAC I do) WE all know that in > your Lawyer world, fantasy is reality and vice versa. It's all in the > words and not the actions. Again, not sure who you're referring to with "WE". Historical records show that the physical reality of certain nonmaterial things as judged by physicists is not a 20th century phenomenon. Whether you are aware of that or not is irrelevant. Scientists make their assessments of such assertions by testing against experiment. So when you say that REALITY tells you (you personally, not a mysterious collective you) that the only physical things are material things, on what experimental basis do you come to that conclusion, when scientists over the last three centuries have come to the opposite conclusion? > >> You see, Ben, things aren't false just because they disagree with YOUR >> personal view of the world. > > They are if my view agrees with observations and measurements rather > than your establishment stories and religious dogma. I'm pretty sure that the estimation of physicists about the reality of nonmaterial things is based on observations and measurements. What observations and measurements do you have in mind that assure you that the only real things are material things? > >>> Fantasy is real, Reality is what >>> they tell you it is. Got it? > > Yep. Sums up Odd's "science". Not MY science. The science of physicists. As described by physicists in their writings. Now, I would be positively thrilled if you're going to tell me that the science of physicists isn't really science, and it's only YOUR view of science that is the real science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5d40414-aac2-4fb3-982a-9d4ab008b694@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580143 |
BJ quacked > You see, Ben, things aren't false just because they disagree with YOUR > personal view of the world. They are if my view agrees with observations and measurements rather than your establishment stories and religious dogma. ----------- And this is why BJ believes in ghosts. They HAVE been observed and measured (Just watch the tv show Ghost Catchers). You mainstream scientists, according to BJ, are afraid to reveal the truth about the existence of ghosts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57466d8c$0$62597$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #580335 |
On 05/25/2016 09:23 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> You see, Ben, things aren't false just because they disagree with YOUR >> personal view of the world. > > They are if my view agrees with observations and measurements rather > than your establishment stories and religious dogma. > ----------- > > And this is why BJ believes in ghosts. They HAVE been observed and measured (Just watch the tv show Ghost Catchers). You mainstream scientists, according to BJ, are afraid to reveal the truth about the existence of ghosts. > Sorry, but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play with you today!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d03c7ba-bc2a-4216-b0f9-4bd10eb90685@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580074 |
BJ quacked You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no matter how it conflicts with reality. Fantasy is real, Reality is what they tell you it is. Got it? ------------ And this is why BJ believes in ghosts and ESP. Right BJ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 13:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57449162$0$25137$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #580095 |
On 05/24/2016 11:46 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever > someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no > matter how it conflicts with reality. Fantasy is real, Reality is what > they tell you it is. Got it? > ------------ > > And this is why BJ believes in ghosts and ESP. > > Right BJ? > This is why HVAC believes that men are beautiful. He's gay you know. Only he won't come out! Of course I believe that you DO NOT have ESP and CANNOT tell what other people believe unless they tell you. Still having trouble with those "gook ghosts" (tm) at night?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a91fbbaf-37af-412d-a114-ac7f26c1f3f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580074 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:54:20 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 05/24/2016 07:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you > >> Srians claimed. > > > > Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real > > and anything that's not material you don't think is real. > > You don't get it Kenseto! In the "modern" version of science, whatever > someone in authority suggests as true MUST be simply accepted as true no > matter how it conflicts with reality. Fantasy is real, Reality is what > they tell you it is. Got it? Got it.....Odd is a brainless idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni47mp$15fn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579880 |
On 5/23/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: >>>> How are you defining 'ether'? >>> >>> Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>> >>>> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. >>>> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such >>>> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, >>>> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this >>>> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. >>> >>> Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether. >> >> As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, >> but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept. > > The ether means a material medium. Well in that case you've got problems. A material medium has a mass density. What is the mass density of your matrix? And if it's a material medium, how does a solid body pass through this medium without experiencing drag and losing energy? If it's a material medium, a solid body should drag some of the medium with it, like a car drags air, and you should be able to see the effects of that differential drag, like turbulent currents. So where are those? If it's a material medium, it has to support transverse waves because light is a transverse wave not a longitudinal waves. Material media that can be pushed out of the way by solid objects moving through it like through a gas, do not have the stiffness needed to support a transverse wave, which is why sound in air is only longitudinal. So how does this material medium support transverse waves? > My ether is the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is a structured and > elastic stationary medium.....different speeds of a clock moving in the E-Matrix will effect > the rate of accumulating of clock seconds. >> >>> >>>> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different >>>> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been >>>> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations). >>> >>> The concept of ether never been dis[roved. >>> >> >> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. > > No not disproven the E-Matrix. > > >> For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the >> speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the >> earth moves, has been disproven by experiment. > > The E-Matrix agrees with all past experiments. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > >> >> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse >> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. > > The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-05-25 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41372180-c82a-42ea-b1c1-9d1503ecc47e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580330 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:01:19 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > >>>> How are you defining 'ether'? > >>> > >>> Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >>> > >>>> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. > >>>> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such > >>>> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, > >>>> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this > >>>> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. > >>> > >>> Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether. > >> > >> As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, > >> but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept. > > > > The ether means a material medium. > > Well in that case you've got problems. I got no problem. > A material medium has a mass density. What is the mass density of your > matrix? > And if it's a material medium, how does a solid body pass through this > medium without experiencing drag and losing energy? > If it's a material medium, a solid body should drag some of the medium > with it, like a car drags air, and you should be able to see the effects > of that differential drag, like turbulent currents. So where are those? > If it's a material medium, it has to support transverse waves because > light is a transverse wave not a longitudinal waves. Material media that > can be pushed out of the way by solid objects moving through it like > through a gas, do not have the stiffness needed to support a transverse > wave, which is why sound in air is only longitudinal. So how does this > material medium support transverse waves? Read the description of the E-Matrix and the assumptions of Model Mechanics in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > My ether is the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is a structured and > > elastic stationary medium.....different speeds of a clock moving in the E-Matrix will effect > > the rate of accumulating of clock seconds. > >> > >>> > >>>> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different > >>>> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been > >>>> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations). > >>> > >>> The concept of ether never been dis[roved. > >>> > >> > >> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. > > > > No not disproven the E-Matrix. > > > > > >> For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the > >> speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the > >> earth moves, has been disproven by experiment. > > > > The E-Matrix agrees with all past experiments. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > >> > >> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse > >> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. > > > > The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-05-25 10:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni4em3$1gpj$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580357 |
On 5/25/2016 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:01:19 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 3:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> The ether means a material medium. >> >> Well in that case you've got problems. > > I got no problem. > >> A material medium has a mass density. What is the mass density of your >> matrix? >> And if it's a material medium, how does a solid body pass through this >> medium without experiencing drag and losing energy? >> If it's a material medium, a solid body should drag some of the medium >> with it, like a car drags air, and you should be able to see the effects >> of that differential drag, like turbulent currents. So where are those? >> If it's a material medium, it has to support transverse waves because >> light is a transverse wave not a longitudinal waves. Material media that >> can be pushed out of the way by solid objects moving through it like >> through a gas, do not have the stiffness needed to support a transverse >> wave, which is why sound in air is only longitudinal. So how does this >> material medium support transverse waves? > > Read the description of the E-Matrix and the assumptions of Model Mechanics in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Notice that the article in that link does not answer ANY of the questions I raised. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvaps$b32$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579515 |
On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction." Why do you think such a law must hold? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17187de9-8f5b-4bb5-a96e-f16ce159c5cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579802 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion > > Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one > direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction." > Why do you think such a law must hold? If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKydnSXz5Ppo-97KnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579873 |
On 5/23/16 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
> If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.
No Seto --
Let A and B be in relative motion with each other. Who is moving and
who is not moving doesn't matter.
Let A and B have a relative velocity of v/c
then γ = 1/√(1-(v/c)^2)
Let ∆A' be a proper time interval on A's clock
Let ∆B' be a proper time interval on B's clock
From B's perspective:
B will measure A's clock interval ∆A = γ ∆A'
From A's perspective:
A will measure B's clock interval ∆B = γ ∆B'
with some numbers (ignoring Doppler effects)
Let A and B have a relative velocity of v/c = 0.86
then γ = 1.96
From B's perspective:
B will measure A's clock interval ∆A = 1.96 ∆A'
From A's perspective:
A will measure B's clock interval ∆B = 1.96 ∆B'
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvpop$14cb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579873 |
On 5/23/2016 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion >> >> Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one >> direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction." >> Why do you think such a law must hold? > > If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree > with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate. But A doesn't say that. This isn't what time dilation means. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 01:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhr23p$3gf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #579460 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Subject: Re: Questions for Eisteinians WTF is an "Eisteinians"? >Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations? >Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? Read the source: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the denominator is always less than or equal to 1. As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion". Similarly, the measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma, there can only be length contraction and no length expansion. >Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer >assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's >why SRT and LET have the same math? Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether. >Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for >the aether frame? Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether. >Thank you for your answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11579c93-9dba-4615-846d-97d53eb033dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579489 |
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:31:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >Subject: Re: Questions for Eisteinians > > WTF is an "Eisteinians"? > > >Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations? > > >Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? > > Read the source: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf > > You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll > see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the > denominator is always less than or equal to 1. Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point???? > > As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which > can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of > time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion". 1/gamma is equal to your "time contraction" and my "time expansion" and it means that a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the observer's clock. > Similarly, the > measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma, > there can only be length contraction and no length expansion. Similarly 1/gamma is light-path length expansion. It means that a moving meter stick will have a shorter light-path length than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick and the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its material length. > > >Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer > >assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's > >why SRT and LET have the same math? > > Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether. Assertion is not a valid argument. > >Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for > >the aether frame? > > Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether. Disavow all you want....an inertial frame is just another name for a location in the aether. That's why SRT and LET derived the same math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web