Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #589377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:11 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 00:16 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 22:55 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:44 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 09:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:22 -0500
glightinos noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:40 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:59 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 12:59 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 14:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 16:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-18 19:02 -0400
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 13:26 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 16:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> - 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700
light is waves through the electronic matters of free space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:53 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:50 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 12:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:49 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:33 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 16:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:14 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 18:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 19:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:48 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 15:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 18:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 19:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 00:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-16 22:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:22 -0500
all properties of light are wave(y\s, including the photon-electrical effect noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:37 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:39 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 21:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:47 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc0dba6d-14e1-489a-abdb-3c74cec50ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589582 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 3:10:43 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:48:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/16/2016 4:45 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated > > >>> elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. > > >> > > >> Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Acceleration is absolute, dumbass. > > > > And so how does your conclusion follow? > > > > > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > > Why do relativists insists on being so fuckung dense? What's up with that shit? > > Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration is the same relative to everything else? Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent? > > Get a fucking clue, moron. I no longer rejoice at your stupidity. It's no longer fucking funny. It's fucking pathetic. Like I said, go pack yams up your ass. By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat. Jackshit is what you deserve. Pearls and swines and all that. Now go pack relativistic yams up your asses. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f57b9f3f-cc7f-4704-a05e-d2b7e38e27b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589589 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:11:16 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat... Translation; "I don't have a clue! I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90eab802-ecb0-4b60-adfb-04854e737373@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589608 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 6:18:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:11:16 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat... > > Translation; "I don't have a clue! I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it!" Says the brain-dead relativist who has no fucking idea what the equivalence principle means. Go pack yams up your ass with your butt-buddy, Bodkin. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a2d41f7-5a53-452e-94db-d783469581c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589617 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:40:22 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 6:18:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:11:16 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat... > > > > Translation; "I don't have a clue! I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it!" > > Says the brain-dead relativist who has no fucking idea what the equivalence principle means. Go pack yams up your ass with your butt-buddy, Bodkin. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha... Well, dumbfuck, I've forgotten more physics than you have ever known. Get over it. You can't even give us the definition of the word 'acceleration'!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d2eaf92-9468-425e-a764-fa054415be23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589627 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:35:11 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:40:22 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 6:18:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:11:16 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat... > > > > > > Translation; "I don't have a clue! I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it!" > > > > Says the brain-dead relativist who has no fucking idea what the equivalence principle means. Go pack yams up your ass with your butt-buddy, Bodkin. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > Well, dumbfuck, I've forgotten more physics than you have ever known. Get over it. > > You can't even give us the definition of the word 'acceleration'! Go pack sand up your ass, jackass. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgphu$tee$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589589 |
On 7/16/2016 6:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. Well, if you do, surely you (thinking like a scientist) would have a way to test your hypothesis experimentally. Because otherwise, if you claim to know a new law of physics even without scientific experimental test, then I'll bet even you would understand why physicists would laugh at that claim. > But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat. > Jackshit is what you deserve. Pearls and swines and all that. > > Now go pack relativistic yams up your asses. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha... Bluster is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 22:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b4baad1-f292-4d6d-966f-5eaf611d7f65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589582 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 6:10:43 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:48:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/16/2016 4:45 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated > > >>> elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. > > >> > > >> Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Acceleration is absolute, dumbass. > > > > And so how does your conclusion follow? > > > > > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > > Why do relativists insists on being so fuckung dense? What's up with that shit? > > Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration is the same relative to everything else? Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent? > > Get a fucking clue, moron. I no longer rejoice at your stupidity. It's no longer fucking funny. It's fucking pathetic. Like I said, go pack yams up your ass. xxein: I'll try to clear up some confusion and make you happy. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/ This is the Shapiro effect. Read it at your own risk though. The main points are that light will be bent AND will slow down. "On the other hand, the time needed for the traversal of a given path diameter grows significantly, because the light, in accordance with the formulas of G5, moves more slowly than it would when outside a gravitational field." "In the following we calculate the difference in time that arises because the light near the sun travels a little bit slower." "...we get the following expression for the total amount of delay which also provides good values for a path at a great distance from the sun..." It says in words that light slows down. It, of course, means traveling more or less perpendicular to the direction of gravity. The consequence of this is that slower light bends more because it spends more time in the greater gravity. Throw a slower ball and it will sink more in gravity than a faster ball. Slower light bends more than faster light. In essence it is saying, and for your understanding, that light bends double the amount as predicted by Newton. It implies a lot more in the math of it but don't be concerned with that. It does not imply a lot of the statements you made however. Especially not "Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?" Light does not fall twice as fast as mass. That light slows down due to gravity (as a statement) is a misnomer but it is the only way that GR can express it within itself. Some day in the future I hope to make this clear. At present, the essence of gravity is misrepresented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgpdf$tee$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589582 |
On 7/16/2016 5:10 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend > on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration > is the same relative to everything else? No, it does not. When a physicist tells you that acceleration is absolute, it means that the acceleration of that ONE OBJECT is independent of reference frame. But I think it's awfully cute that you took a sound bite about acceleration being absolute and decided for yourself what "absolute" means in that sentence without reading further. I think it's adorable that you think it means that the acceleration of all things is the same. I think it's even more adorable that you looked at a PICTURE of the elevator gedanken and drew your own conclusions about the point of the gedanken, rather than reading any words about it. Might I suggest starting with Hop On Pop? Good pictures AND a few words to practice with. > Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the > gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent? But they don't, as already explained. They obey exactly the same rule, which is how that rule got derived FROM the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 17:03 -0700 |
| Subject | all properties of light are wave(y\s, including the photon-electrical effect |
| Message-ID | <61fb72e1-ec29-4914-862d-14a5cd0239ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589458 |
the problem is known as "the brachistochrone, a.k.a the tautochrone, solved in planar form by Liebniz et al, but it depends upon taking a single "ray of light -- that is to say a single normal to hte wavefront, as the canonical particulation (so to say > "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55ce8113-d249-4d64-adcb-b32a6dc34fd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. Why is it that, when a brain-dead relativist is asked to give a physical reason for a phenomenon, they immediately pull a fucking equation out of their asses as if an equation was a physical reason for anything? What's up with this crap?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgtqd$13p0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589492 |
On 7/15/2016 6:42 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com > wrote: >> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast >> as mass? >> no. >> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the >> contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. wrong. > > Why is it that, when a brain-dead relativist is asked to give a > physical reason for a phenomenon, they immediately pull a fucking > equation out of their asses as if an equation was a physical reason > for anything? it is the language of science. > > What's up with this crap? > you too concerned with your butt, have a Dr look at it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26bfc8b5-0847-42cd-90ba-a98a11cbb0db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? Yes, look it up. > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, > it's the math that needs a physical explanation. Why is it that when brain-dead anti-Relativists claim there's no "physical explanation" for Relativity, they have no "physical explanation" to offer to rebut Relativity? Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b84ddb0-d17d-4010-9fc2-25bb7f47cde7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589669 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:15:48 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > Yes, look it up. > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, > > it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > Why is it that when brain-dead anti-Relativists claim there's no "physical explanation" for Relativity, they have no "physical explanation" to offer to rebut Relativity? > > > Mark L. Fergerson Fuck you, you background believer. Take all your non-existent frames of reference and pack them up your ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgqh5$tee$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589670 |
On 7/17/2016 3:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Fuck you, you background believer. Take all your non-existent frames of reference and pack them up your ass. You can say "Fuck you" and "pack sand" and "pack yams" all day long to everyone you meet, for all anyone cares. What does that gain you? Hmmm? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 17:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvj928FqtchU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
On 15/07/2016 4:01 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as > mass? > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the > contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > Translation - I know there's something wrong with the physics, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 00:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3194ac53-4045-4f6f-bb10-539439971f4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590559 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/07/2016 4:01 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as > > mass? > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the > > contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > Translation - I know there's something wrong with the physics, and > nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. > > Sylvia. LOL. Yeah. Well, I would put it slightly differently. I know that the physics is a big stinking pile of crap. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnapmh$tcg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590560 |
On 7/24/2016 2:39 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > I know that the physics is a big stinking pile of crap. don't blame us for your pile of crap you call you life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a216be-db34-4e83-a2a8-6950cbc8dad5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590936 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:06:30 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 7/24/2016 2:39 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I know that the physics is a big stinking pile of crap. > > > don't blame us for your pile of crap you call you life. You just can't get enough of my words, can you? You're a hard-core fan of mine now. You love to have your nose rubbed in your own shit, don't you, Sergio Estupido Desgraciado? ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f37b676-7625-41f0-89a6-e537cf0fa6a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. I'm still waiting for one of you assholes in the physics community to coherently explain why photons fall twice as fast as massive particles. Don't tell me it's because of the math because it would be a sign that you are a clueless jackass. I want a physical explanation, not abstract math. If all you got is math, roll it up and pack it up your ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnaahj$2oe$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590891 |
On 7/26/2016 11:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? >> >> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math >> that needs a physical explanation. > > I'm still waiting for one of you assholes in the physics community to coherently explain why > photons fall twice as fast as massive particles. Don't tell me it's because of the math > because it would be a sign that you are a clueless jackass. I want a physical explanation, > not abstract math. If all you got is math, roll it up and pack it up your ass. You want an explanation you UNDERSTAND, because you can't deal with even the simplest math. Rather than putting the burden on you to LEARN something (which you're terrified of trying to do), you want physics to stoop down to your 2nd-grade ability and work with you there. No soap, pal. Suck it up and grow a pair. Be a man, not a whiny 2nd grader. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web