Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: What is the difference between closing speed and relative speed?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
May 24, 2013, 7:12:15 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 11:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/23/13 5/23/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> The relative speed of object A relative to B only makes sense when B is moving
> inertially and has constructed an inertial coordinate system in which B is at
> rest.
This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
> This is so because speed is really defined RELATIVE TO A COORDINATE
> SYSTEM,
Nonsense. Relative velocity is always defined as the velocity of B as
observed by A even when A is observed to be moving relative to C.
> Closing speed also requires an inertial coordinate system to make sense,
There is no such thing as the closing speed. <shrug>
> The reason for the difference is purely geometrical: in Newtonian mechanics all
> instruments are considered to be parallel to each other in space and time, so
> velocity 3-vectors simply add and subtract as usual. In relativity, instruments
> moving relative to each other are not parallel in spacetime, and this
> complicates the relationships among measurements in different frames.
Peddling more bullshit, Tom? It sounds like you have defined closing
speed as the result from the velocity transformation of the Lorentz
transform. The nature of non-linear addition of velocity is the
manifestation of the mathematical model. You don’t have to define
another term to justify for the mystic nature of SR. <shrug>
> The world we inhabit, of course, is well described by relativity and is not well
> described by Newtonian mechanics except when velocities are small compared to c
> (and one does not consider either the cosmological or the quantum realms).
So far, all experimental verifications that support SR also support
its antitheses where the antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist,
and the principle of relativity is not valid at high speeds. A true
scientist would go out and find experimental results that support only
SR but not its antitheses in order to say SR is valid. So far, this
basic concept of scientific method still eludes all self-styled
physicists. They are no scientists. <shrug>
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
> > "How can that be right?
>
> Because the world we inhabit happens to behave that way.
No, a better remark is that the mathematics turns out to be that way.
<shrug>
> That is, this is an
> EXPERIMENTAL conclusion, not something merely thought up by Einstein (and
> others, notably Lorentz).
Is it, really? What experiment does show the reality of the velocity
transformation of the Lorentz transform? <shrug>
> > Naively the relativistic formula for adding velocities does not seem to make
> > sense. "
>
> Well, one must not approach physics naively. Physics can be quite subtle. This
> most definitely does make sense once one understands the issues.
Yes, this is true. Why are you approaching physics naively? Why do
you decide a hypothesis is more valid than its antitheses when all
experiments so far you can conjure up indicate support for all?
<shrug>
> > Also, Wikipedia "Although according to current theories matter is still
> > required to travel subluminally with respect to the locally distorted
> > spacetime region, apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity."
>
> This is a bit confused. [rest of confusion snipped]
The nature of the speed limit pegged to the speed of light in vacuum
is strictly from the velocity transformation of the Lorentz
transform. There is no need to spin more myths and confusion, Tom.
<shrug>
> On 5/23/13 5/23/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> The relative speed of object A relative to B only makes sense when B is moving
> inertially and has constructed an inertial coordinate system in which B is at
> rest.
This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
> This is so because speed is really defined RELATIVE TO A COORDINATE
> SYSTEM,
Nonsense. Relative velocity is always defined as the velocity of B as
observed by A even when A is observed to be moving relative to C.
> Closing speed also requires an inertial coordinate system to make sense,
There is no such thing as the closing speed. <shrug>
> The reason for the difference is purely geometrical: in Newtonian mechanics all
> instruments are considered to be parallel to each other in space and time, so
> velocity 3-vectors simply add and subtract as usual. In relativity, instruments
> moving relative to each other are not parallel in spacetime, and this
> complicates the relationships among measurements in different frames.
Peddling more bullshit, Tom? It sounds like you have defined closing
speed as the result from the velocity transformation of the Lorentz
transform. The nature of non-linear addition of velocity is the
manifestation of the mathematical model. You don’t have to define
another term to justify for the mystic nature of SR. <shrug>
> The world we inhabit, of course, is well described by relativity and is not well
> described by Newtonian mechanics except when velocities are small compared to c
> (and one does not consider either the cosmological or the quantum realms).
So far, all experimental verifications that support SR also support
its antitheses where the antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist,
and the principle of relativity is not valid at high speeds. A true
scientist would go out and find experimental results that support only
SR but not its antitheses in order to say SR is valid. So far, this
basic concept of scientific method still eludes all self-styled
physicists. They are no scientists. <shrug>
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
> > "How can that be right?
>
> Because the world we inhabit happens to behave that way.
No, a better remark is that the mathematics turns out to be that way.
<shrug>
> That is, this is an
> EXPERIMENTAL conclusion, not something merely thought up by Einstein (and
> others, notably Lorentz).
Is it, really? What experiment does show the reality of the velocity
transformation of the Lorentz transform? <shrug>
> > Naively the relativistic formula for adding velocities does not seem to make
> > sense. "
>
> Well, one must not approach physics naively. Physics can be quite subtle. This
> most definitely does make sense once one understands the issues.
Yes, this is true. Why are you approaching physics naively? Why do
you decide a hypothesis is more valid than its antitheses when all
experiments so far you can conjure up indicate support for all?
<shrug>
> > Also, Wikipedia "Although according to current theories matter is still
> > required to travel subluminally with respect to the locally distorted
> > spacetime region, apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity."
>
> This is a bit confused. [rest of confusion snipped]
The nature of the speed limit pegged to the speed of light in vacuum
is strictly from the velocity transformation of the Lorentz
transform. There is no need to spin more myths and confusion, Tom.
<shrug>
rotchm
May 24, 2013, 7:25:52 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 7:12 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 11:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 5/23/13 5/23/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The relative speed of object A relative to B only makes sense when B is moving
> > inertially and has constructed an inertial coordinate system in which B is at
> > rest.
>
> This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
> at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
Define relative velocity first so as to make sure that all are talking
> On May 24, 11:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 5/23/13 5/23/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The relative speed of object A relative to B only makes sense when B is moving
> > inertially and has constructed an inertial coordinate system in which B is at
> > rest.
>
> This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
> at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
about the same thing.
And physically, "speed" has an operational definition depending on the
construction (the setting up) of an inertial coordinate system as Tom
said.
> > This is so because speed is really defined RELATIVE TO A COORDINATE
> > SYSTEM,
>
> Nonsense.
> Relative velocity is always defined as the velocity of B as
> observed by A even when A is observed to be moving relative to C.
> > Closing speed also requires an inertial coordinate system to make sense,
>
> There is no such thing as the closing speed. <shrug>
capable to look it up, no?
Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
objects". Here 'objects' is taken in a large sense, as 'any thing'.
Also from from wiki: "the rate of change in the distance between two
objects in a frame of reference"
<REST OF CRAP SNIPPED>.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 24, 2013, 7:45:35 PM5/24/13
to
in other word, relative velocity. Galilean kinematics shows that
you can use a frame that moves with you
at a constant speed (mod the fact that,
in actuality, you are spinning on an orbital satellite).
you can use a frame that moves with you
at a constant speed (mod the fact that,
in actuality, you are spinning on an orbital satellite).
Koobee Wublee
May 25, 2013, 1:26:02 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 4:25 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
continue. Better study up on the principle of relativity per
Galilean’s work. That is the basics of physics. <shrug>
[rest of shit snipped]
Can’t Tom speak for himself anymore that he has to hire these street
prostitutes who do not understand the principle of relativity to do
lip service for him? <shrug>
> On May 24, 7:12 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
> > at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
>
> Define relative velocity first so as to make sure that all are talking
> about the same thing.
If you don’t know what relative velocity means, there is no need to
> > This is just wrong, Tom. Relative velocity between two objects exists
> > at any time under any circumstances. <shrug>
>
> Define relative velocity first so as to make sure that all are talking
> about the same thing.
continue. Better study up on the principle of relativity per
Galilean’s work. That is the basics of physics. <shrug>
[rest of shit snipped]
Can’t Tom speak for himself anymore that he has to hire these street
prostitutes who do not understand the principle of relativity to do
lip service for him? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
May 25, 2013, 1:51:57 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 9:46 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Hmmm. The context here is SR, and in SR an inertial frame covers the manifold,
> so every object in the world being modeled is "in" every inertial frame, in the
> sense that the frame's coordinates can be applied to the object.
>
> Some people say "X is in frame K" when they mean "X is AT REST
> in frame K". That clearly cannot apply here.
>
> Just apply the definition I gave above: yes, B predicts that the CLOSING SPEED
> IN B'S COORDINATES between A and various light fronts from different directions
> will have different values.
>
> This, of course, violates no condition or assumption of SR, because none of them
> refer to closing speed. Closing speed is inherently coordinate dependent, and
> the modern foundations of SR are independent of coordinates.
>
> If A constructs inertial coordinates in which A is at rest, A
> will measure speed c for every light front using those coordinates.
> This includes those light fronts which have different values of
> closing speed with A in B's coordinates.
>
> > 2. C is in B's frame does B predicts that light fronts from different
> > directions reaching C have different closing speeds?
>
> Same answer, A => C.
Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
When talking about velocity, you have to specify the target and who is
observing it. This is according to Galileo, and this basic concept
also applies in the Lorentz transform or its antitheses, too. Is
Tom’s word salad above an attempt to challenge Galileo’s basic concept
of velocity? <shrug>
> Hmmm. The context here is SR, and in SR an inertial frame covers the manifold,
> so every object in the world being modeled is "in" every inertial frame, in the
> sense that the frame's coordinates can be applied to the object.
>
> Some people say "X is in frame K" when they mean "X is AT REST
> in frame K". That clearly cannot apply here.
>
> Just apply the definition I gave above: yes, B predicts that the CLOSING SPEED
> IN B'S COORDINATES between A and various light fronts from different directions
> will have different values.
>
> This, of course, violates no condition or assumption of SR, because none of them
> refer to closing speed. Closing speed is inherently coordinate dependent, and
> the modern foundations of SR are independent of coordinates.
>
> If A constructs inertial coordinates in which A is at rest, A
> will measure speed c for every light front using those coordinates.
> This includes those light fronts which have different values of
> closing speed with A in B's coordinates.
>
> > 2. C is in B's frame does B predicts that light fronts from different
> > directions reaching C have different closing speeds?
>
> Same answer, A => C.
Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
When talking about velocity, you have to specify the target and who is
observing it. This is according to Galileo, and this basic concept
also applies in the Lorentz transform or its antitheses, too. Is
Tom’s word salad above an attempt to challenge Galileo’s basic concept
of velocity? <shrug>
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 7:22:27 AM5/25/13
to
Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
--
Poutnik
kenseto
May 25, 2013, 7:39:05 AM5/25/13
to
contradictory definitions.
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 7:59:17 AM5/25/13
to
kenseto posted Sat, 25 May 2013 04:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On May 25, 7:22�am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> contradictory definitions.
Only if they were 2 different definitions of the same thing.
> > CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> contradictory definitions.
They are not the same thing.
BTW, they are not SR definitions, but physical definitions.
They have nothing to do particularly with SR,
as they are general terms.
--
Poutnik
kenseto
May 25, 2013, 8:08:39 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 7:59 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Sat, 25 May 2013 04:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
> kenseto posted Sat, 25 May 2013 04:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > > CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> > Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> > contradictory definitions.
>
> Only if they were 2 different definitions of the same thing.
> They are not the same thing.
>
> BTW, they are not SR definitions, but physical definitions.
>
> They have nothing to do particularly with SR,
> as they are general terms.
They have everything to do with SR....different closing speeds for
> > > CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> > Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> > contradictory definitions.
>
> Only if they were 2 different definitions of the same thing.
> They are not the same thing.
>
> BTW, they are not SR definitions, but physical definitions.
>
> They have nothing to do particularly with SR,
> as they are general terms.
light gives riase to the bogus SR concept of Relativity of
Simultaneity.....and RoS is needed to explain the papradoxes derived
from the SRE postulates.
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 8:16:23 AM5/25/13
to
kenseto posted Sat, 25 May 2013 05:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Only if they were 2 different definitions of the same thing.
> > They are not the same thing.
> >
> > BTW, they are not SR definitions, but physical definitions.
> >
> > They have nothing to do particularly with SR,
> > as they are general terms.
>
> They have everything to do with SR....
--
Poutnik
YBM
May 25, 2013, 8:50:45 AM5/25/13
to
Le 25.05.2013 13:39, kenseto a �crit :
No, that means that you are stupid.
rotchm
May 25, 2013, 10:02:09 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 1:51 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as closing speed.
I see that you choose to ignore what is written in the dictionaries.
> There is no such thing as closing speed.
Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
objects"...
> When talking about velocity, you have to specify the target and who is
> observing it.
luck with that.
kenseto
May 25, 2013, 1:42:15 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 10:02 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 1:51 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as closing speed.
>
> I see that you choose to ignore what is written in the dictionaries.
>
> Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
> It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
> objects"...
light is not an object.
> On May 25, 1:51 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as closing speed.
>
> I see that you choose to ignore what is written in the dictionaries.
>
> Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
> It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
> objects"...
rotchm
May 25, 2013, 2:39:27 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 1:42 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 25, 10:02 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
> > It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
> > objects"...
>
> light is not an object.
Cant you read? I also said that "object" is to be taken in its
> On May 25, 10:02 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Look it up in a recent official lexicography of Physics:
> > It is defined as as "the rate of change of the distance between two
> > objects"...
>
> light is not an object.
large sense, as an EM pulse etc.
Now, can you sate what is the definition of closing speed?
Barry Hughes
May 25, 2013, 2:42:05 PM5/25/13
to
rotchm wrote:
> Now, can you sate what is the definition of closing speed?
That only may be valid if you stands in the middle. Then still
> Now, can you sate what is the definition of closing speed?
not quite. That speed is there as seen from where exactly?
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 3:27:49 PM5/25/13
to
Barry Hughes posted Sat, 25 May 2013 18:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
with light closing speed.
If you stand on a street - defining frame of reference,
there is coming
car A 20 m/s
car B 30 m/s
having mutual closing speed 50 m/s
light is like a car with speed 300 000 000 m/s.
closing speed = distance before collision / time to collision,
more exactly time derivative.
For a Car approaching to light the closing speed c + v,as for give
distance the time is not d/c, but d/(c+v),
as a car save a bit time for light ,
shortening the distance before colision.
--
Poutnik
Barry Hughes
May 25, 2013, 3:33:38 PM5/25/13
to
Poutnik wrote:
> light is like a car with speed 300 000 000 m/s.
No Sir, light is bosons which is fundamentally different from
> light is like a car with speed 300 000 000 m/s.
cars, which are fermions. Believe me.
No wonder you don't understand relativity.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 25, 2013, 3:41:08 PM5/25/13
to
like I typed into teh dumbterm.
> [rest of shit snipped]
> [rest of shit snipped]
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 25, 2013, 3:43:40 PM5/25/13
to
waves are in deed bosonic per se; however,
closing speed is purely subjective, iff
it is "coming at you" (or "going away, thus making
for a "minus closing speed," like
the odometer going backward from the Big Zeros.
closing speed is purely subjective, iff
it is "coming at you" (or "going away, thus making
for a "minus closing speed," like
the odometer going backward from the Big Zeros.
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 3:56:53 PM5/25/13
to
Barry Hughes posted Sat, 25 May 2013 19:33:38 +0000 (UTC)
>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > light is like a car with speed 300 000 000 m/s.
>
> No Sir, light is bosons which is fundamentally different from
> cars, which are fermions. Believe me.
Both bosons and fermions share the fact
they have defined speed in the reference frame.
>
> No wonder you don't understand relativity.
You make unwise claims about both people and nature.
> No wonder you don't understand relativity.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 3:58:22 PM5/25/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane posted Sat, 25 May 2013 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
>
> waves are in deed bosonic per se; however,
> closing speed is purely subjective, iff
computable from relative speeds (wrt frame ) of the observed.
> it is "coming at you" (or "going away, thus making
> for a "minus closing speed," like
> the odometer going backward from the Big Zeros.
>
Poutnik
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 25, 2013, 6:16:20 PM5/25/13
to
the term comes from, like,
avoiding torpedoes; of course, it can be objectified
in any way.
avoiding torpedoes; of course, it can be objectified
in any way.
Poutnik
May 25, 2013, 6:21:56 PM5/25/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane posted Sat, 25 May 2013 15:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
as they is no subjective element involveed.
--
Poutnik
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 25, 2013, 8:19:51 PM5/25/13
to
the subjective part invloves fear,
how fast the bomb is closing in on me.
there isn't any argument per se.
how fast the bomb is closing in on me.
there isn't any argument per se.
Koobee Wublee
May 28, 2013, 2:57:12 AM5/28/13
to
On May 27, 8:26 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/27/13 5/27/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The problem I have is this: in scientific discovery we rely on observations
> > as well as computations. Are only observations valid? Are computations not
> > valid? Computations do not 'describe reality?'. All scientific knowledge
> > based on computations should be immediately discounted?
>
> No. You are VERY confused. You are missing the forest by concentrating on the
> veins in a leaf.
>
> Science is the human process by which we develop models of the world we inhabit.
> Hopefully over time, as we learn more and develop better technology, these
> models get better and better, with wider domains of applicability.
Yes, what Tom is saying is correct. Let Koobee Wublee reiterate what
science is.
** Start with a hypothesis.
** Compute the predictions to this hypothesis.
** Design experiment to test these preditions.
If any experiment shows a disagreement in these predictions, the
hypothesis is wrong.
Furthermore, if the hypothesis and its antitheses all satisfy the same
observations, you end up having nothing. You must show experiments
that verify your hypothesis and disprove its antitheses. <shrug>
> And that has
> indeed been the case: Newtonian mechanics gave way to SR,
This is just not true. SR is a hypothesis over Newtonian mechanics
that is capable of explaining the null results of the MMX. SR must be
subjected to experimental verifications before deciding that SR is
indeed a model built on top of the Newtonian mechanics. <shrug>
> which gave way to GR;
Ditto, Tom. <shrug>
> in each case the new theory provided higher accuracy in predicting experimental
> results, and a wider domain of applicability. A more remarkable progression has
> occurred in quantum theory....
It turns out that SR and GR manifest all sorts of mathematical
inconsistencies in which Koobee Wublee has addressed one by one in the
past. <shrgu>
> So what matters is how well a give model works to describe and predict physical
> phenomena in the world, not whether it involves "observation or computation".
All news models must be subjected to experimental verifications. This
is what scientific method is all about. This is what separate
scientists from crackpots. The question is if the self-styled
physicists in which Tom is one of them is indeed a scientist or not.
<shrug>
> Note that nature takes no notice of how humans happen to observe her behavior,
> so HOW humans make observations cannot possibly affect any physical phenomena
> (it can only affect how they are described).
Yes, this is true. So, why is the momentum term showing up in the
field equations? Momentum is an observer dependent quantity, no?
<shrug>
> In physics a primary means of
> observation is by using a coordinate system,
> which is an ARBITRARY choice of the humans using it.
Yes, this is true, but Tom is trying to downplay this important
concept. To describe any physical phenomena, you must choose a
coordinate to do so, and there are no exceptions. If you don’t have a
coordinate system in mind, there is no bloody way you can describe any
invariant geometry. <shrug>
> So no coordinate-dependent quantity can possibly be a valid
> model of any physical phenomenon.
Tom is grossly confusing observer and coordinate dependencies. No
observer can affect the invariant geometry that he is observing, but
that does not mean the description of that invariant geometry is the
same using different coordinate systems. <shrug>
> Closing speed is clearly coordinate dependent,
> and this is why no physical theory has ever been phrased in terms of closing
> speed.
There is no such thing as the closing speed. <shrug>
> Relative speed is likewise coordinate dependent, and no current
> fundamental theory involves it, either.
The whole point is that it is very stupid to talk about coordinate
dependency because it depends on the observer. What makes sense is
observer dependency. <shrug>
> Our current theories are all described
> by manifestly coordinate-independent equations among tensor or spinor quantities.
Nonsense. Tensor calculus is nothing but applying Leibniz’s chain
rules on derivatives to matrices. They are not coordinate independent
since it is just impossible to describe any invariant geometry without
using a set of coordinate system. You must supply a coordinate system
to begin solving for the field equations, and by the grace of God, you
shall stick with that choice of coordinate system to the very end of
derivations. <shrug>
> Whatever role(s) you might think that velocity, speed, or energy
> could play are taken over by 4-momentum (being a 4-vector, it is
> manifestly independent of coordinates). The relative and closing
> speeds of colliding objects are irrelevant, what matters are the
> Mandelstam variables, all of which are invariants.
Tom is spinning more myths to salvage his already weak case in support
of SR and GR. The reason under SR and GR why the 4-whatever is
invariant is because of the local event. For the simplest case, say
the Minkowski spacetime geometry which is generally described by the
following with two different observers observing the same observed
(the target).
** c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 - ds2^2
Where
** dt1 = Observed flow rate of time by #1
** dt2 = Observed flow rate of time by #2
** ds1 = Observed local space at the target by #1
** ds2 = Observed local space at the target by #2
With all these observers, you can also find the target being the
observer observing itself. In doing so, the equation above simplifies
into the following.
** c^2 dTau^2 = c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 - ds2^2
Where
** dTau = Local flow rate of time
In an abstract fashion where it can be mathematically proven, the
following shows the energy transform in the 4-vector domain.
** E1^2 – p1^2 c^2 = E2^2 – p2^2 c^2
Notice the equation above is invariant because it describes the energy
of the rest mass which must be invariant to any observers. Duh!
<shrug>
> On 5/27/13 5/27/13, gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The problem I have is this: in scientific discovery we rely on observations
> > as well as computations. Are only observations valid? Are computations not
> > valid? Computations do not 'describe reality?'. All scientific knowledge
> > based on computations should be immediately discounted?
>
> No. You are VERY confused. You are missing the forest by concentrating on the
> veins in a leaf.
>
> Science is the human process by which we develop models of the world we inhabit.
> Hopefully over time, as we learn more and develop better technology, these
> models get better and better, with wider domains of applicability.
Yes, what Tom is saying is correct. Let Koobee Wublee reiterate what
science is.
** Start with a hypothesis.
** Compute the predictions to this hypothesis.
** Design experiment to test these preditions.
If any experiment shows a disagreement in these predictions, the
hypothesis is wrong.
Furthermore, if the hypothesis and its antitheses all satisfy the same
observations, you end up having nothing. You must show experiments
that verify your hypothesis and disprove its antitheses. <shrug>
> And that has
> indeed been the case: Newtonian mechanics gave way to SR,
This is just not true. SR is a hypothesis over Newtonian mechanics
that is capable of explaining the null results of the MMX. SR must be
subjected to experimental verifications before deciding that SR is
indeed a model built on top of the Newtonian mechanics. <shrug>
> which gave way to GR;
Ditto, Tom. <shrug>
> in each case the new theory provided higher accuracy in predicting experimental
> results, and a wider domain of applicability. A more remarkable progression has
> occurred in quantum theory....
It turns out that SR and GR manifest all sorts of mathematical
inconsistencies in which Koobee Wublee has addressed one by one in the
past. <shrgu>
> So what matters is how well a give model works to describe and predict physical
> phenomena in the world, not whether it involves "observation or computation".
All news models must be subjected to experimental verifications. This
is what scientific method is all about. This is what separate
scientists from crackpots. The question is if the self-styled
physicists in which Tom is one of them is indeed a scientist or not.
<shrug>
> Note that nature takes no notice of how humans happen to observe her behavior,
> so HOW humans make observations cannot possibly affect any physical phenomena
> (it can only affect how they are described).
Yes, this is true. So, why is the momentum term showing up in the
field equations? Momentum is an observer dependent quantity, no?
<shrug>
> In physics a primary means of
> observation is by using a coordinate system,
> which is an ARBITRARY choice of the humans using it.
Yes, this is true, but Tom is trying to downplay this important
concept. To describe any physical phenomena, you must choose a
coordinate to do so, and there are no exceptions. If you don’t have a
coordinate system in mind, there is no bloody way you can describe any
invariant geometry. <shrug>
> So no coordinate-dependent quantity can possibly be a valid
> model of any physical phenomenon.
Tom is grossly confusing observer and coordinate dependencies. No
observer can affect the invariant geometry that he is observing, but
that does not mean the description of that invariant geometry is the
same using different coordinate systems. <shrug>
> Closing speed is clearly coordinate dependent,
> and this is why no physical theory has ever been phrased in terms of closing
> speed.
There is no such thing as the closing speed. <shrug>
> Relative speed is likewise coordinate dependent, and no current
> fundamental theory involves it, either.
The whole point is that it is very stupid to talk about coordinate
dependency because it depends on the observer. What makes sense is
observer dependency. <shrug>
> Our current theories are all described
> by manifestly coordinate-independent equations among tensor or spinor quantities.
Nonsense. Tensor calculus is nothing but applying Leibniz’s chain
rules on derivatives to matrices. They are not coordinate independent
since it is just impossible to describe any invariant geometry without
using a set of coordinate system. You must supply a coordinate system
to begin solving for the field equations, and by the grace of God, you
shall stick with that choice of coordinate system to the very end of
derivations. <shrug>
> Whatever role(s) you might think that velocity, speed, or energy
> could play are taken over by 4-momentum (being a 4-vector, it is
> manifestly independent of coordinates). The relative and closing
> speeds of colliding objects are irrelevant, what matters are the
> Mandelstam variables, all of which are invariants.
Tom is spinning more myths to salvage his already weak case in support
of SR and GR. The reason under SR and GR why the 4-whatever is
invariant is because of the local event. For the simplest case, say
the Minkowski spacetime geometry which is generally described by the
following with two different observers observing the same observed
(the target).
** c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 - ds2^2
Where
** dt1 = Observed flow rate of time by #1
** dt2 = Observed flow rate of time by #2
** ds1 = Observed local space at the target by #1
** ds2 = Observed local space at the target by #2
With all these observers, you can also find the target being the
observer observing itself. In doing so, the equation above simplifies
into the following.
** c^2 dTau^2 = c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 - ds2^2
Where
** dTau = Local flow rate of time
In an abstract fashion where it can be mathematically proven, the
following shows the energy transform in the 4-vector domain.
** E1^2 – p1^2 c^2 = E2^2 – p2^2 c^2
Notice the equation above is invariant because it describes the energy
of the rest mass which must be invariant to any observers. Duh!
<shrug>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 28, 2013, 3:46:32 AM5/28/13
to
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:e94dab45-69b9-4df6...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
That's not science, that's mathematics.
Science is
** Start with the observation of a natural occurrence.
** Investigate the occurrence.
** Explain the occurrence.
Hypothesizing black holes ain't worth damn, nobody ever saw one.
Same goes for your aether hypothesis, which MMX disagrees with.
news:e94dab45-69b9-4df6...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
. Let Koobee Wublee reiterate what
science is.
** Start with a hypothesis.
** Compute the predictions to this hypothesis.
** Design experiment to test these preditions.
If any experiment shows a disagreement in these predictions, the
hypothesis is wrong.
=============================================
science is.
** Start with a hypothesis.
** Compute the predictions to this hypothesis.
** Design experiment to test these preditions.
If any experiment shows a disagreement in these predictions, the
hypothesis is wrong.
That's not science, that's mathematics.
Science is
** Start with the observation of a natural occurrence.
** Investigate the occurrence.
** Explain the occurrence.
Hypothesizing black holes ain't worth damn, nobody ever saw one.
Same goes for your aether hypothesis, which MMX disagrees with.
Poutnik
May 28, 2013, 4:18:56 AM5/28/13
to
Koobee Wublee posted Mon, 27 May 2013 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Yes, what Tom is saying is correct. Let Koobee Wublee reiterate what
> science is.
>
> ** Start with a hypothesis.
> ** Compute the predictions to this hypothesis.
> ** Design experiment to test these preditions.
>
> If any experiment shows a disagreement in these predictions, the
> hypothesis is wrong.
It may be completely wrong hypothesis,
or hypothesis is right, but not yet complete.
What case happened, is shown later....
--
Poutnik
Absolutely Vertical
May 28, 2013, 10:40:32 AM5/28/13
to
says, they must mean the same thing.
lol. what a maroon.
Absolutely Vertical
May 28, 2013, 12:10:07 PM5/28/13
to
On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> light is not an object.
kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
> light is not an object.
it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
change of the distance between two things.
kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
Poutnik
May 28, 2013, 12:26:53 PM5/28/13
to
Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
"The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
otherwise it would flood all the world"
( Jan Werich, actor, director and libreto writer
of many pre-WWII anti-nazi theatre plays,
former actor-mate of George Voskovec - possibly known
from 12 Angry men movie )
--
Poutnik
Absolutely Vertical
May 28, 2013, 5:37:50 PM5/28/13
to
On 5/28/2013 11:26 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>
> Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
>
>>
>> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> light is not an object.
>>
>> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>>
>> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
>> change of the distance between two things.
>>
>> kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> otherwise it would flood all the world"
i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books. people who
>
> Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
>
>>
>> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> light is not an object.
>>
>> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>>
>> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
>> change of the distance between two things.
>>
>> kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> otherwise it would flood all the world"
should not contribute to the gene pool usually do something stupid
enough to remove themselves from the gene pool before making progeny.
in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen. kenseto is not
smart enough to do something stupid enough to remove himself from the
gene pool.
hanson
May 28, 2013, 9:26:51 PM5/28/13
to
Fatso, the "Absolutely Vertical" Ersatz Rabbi,
What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
>
Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>
Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
<absolutel...@gmail.com> bigut & racist wrote:
i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
the gene pool before making progeny.
in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
hanson wrote:
i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
the gene pool before making progeny.
in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
>
Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>
Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
Message has been deleted
Koobee Wublee
May 29, 2013, 1:16:06 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 6:26 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
> Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>
> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
Is this Absolutely Testicle aka absolutely imbecile PD the ex-college
professor of physics? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee recently trapped a hacker to Denmark who was trying to
hack into Koobee Wublee’s computer using Remote Desktop. Paul
Andersen, another failed college professor, or Dirk van de Moortel aka
the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
> Fatso, the "Absolutely Testicle" Ersatz Rabbi wrote:
> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
> > the gene pool before making progeny.
>
> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
> > the gene pool before making progeny.
>
> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
> What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
> Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>
> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
professor of physics? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee recently trapped a hacker to Denmark who was trying to
hack into Koobee Wublee’s computer using Remote Desktop. Paul
Andersen, another failed college professor, or Dirk van de Moortel aka
the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
hanson
May 29, 2013, 4:30:15 AM5/29/13
to
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 6:26 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>
Fatso, the "Absolutely Testicle" Ersatz Rabbi wrote:
>> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
>> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
>> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
>> > the gene pool before making progeny.
>>
>> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
>> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
>> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>>
>> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
>> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
>> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
>> > the gene pool before making progeny.
>>
>> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
>> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
>> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>>
>> What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
>> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
>
>> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
>
> The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant.
> However, Koobee Wublee would think Koobee Wublee
> should attract more death wishes, no? <shrug> [1]
> However, Koobee Wublee would think Koobee Wublee
>
>> Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
>> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>>
>> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
>> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
>
>> Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
>> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
>>
>> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
>> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
>
> Is this Absolutely Testicle aka absolutely imbecile
> PD the ex-college professor of physics? <shrug> [2]
>
hanson wrote: ---- responding to [1] above:
KW, you don't receive more death threats them Seto,
is because they fear you and you intellectual prowess.
Celebrate their cussing & cursing you. They are losers.
>
Responding to [2] above: AFAIAC, it does not matter
whether AV Fatso is PD Paul Draper or not.
I remember PD to be far more intellectual then AV Fatso.
But maybe PD has become beset with senility. Pity.
I liked my exchanges with pre-senile Paul Draper.
>
Given interest and fancy, I may elaborate on the issues you,
KW, just raised,. They are fascinating, since they
show that physics and math are human (Anthropic)
enterprises in they final analysis.
>
Take care, KW. I always love to read your posts.
KW, you old sport, keep'em coming, by all means...
ahahahanson
>
kenseto
May 29, 2013, 7:52:54 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 10:40 am, Absolutely Vertical
The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
kenseto
May 29, 2013, 7:56:45 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 12:10 pm, Absolutely Vertical
light fronts from different directions. That's why the speed of light
is measured to be isotropic in all frames. Gee you are stupid.
>
<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > light is not an object.
>
> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> change of the distance between two things.
Hey idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between an object
> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > light is not an object.
>
> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> change of the distance between two things.
light fronts from different directions. That's why the speed of light
is measured to be isotropic in all frames. Gee you are stupid.
>
kenseto
May 29, 2013, 7:59:25 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 12:26 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
>
>
> > On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > > light is not an object.
>
> > kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> > it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> > change of the distance between two things.
>
> > kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> otherwise it would flood all the world"
>
I am doing my job fighting your stupidity.
> Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
>
>
> > On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > > light is not an object.
>
> > kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> > it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> > change of the distance between two things.
>
> > kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> otherwise it would flood all the world"
>
kenseto
May 29, 2013, 8:04:56 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 5:37 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
pool accidentally. What you said proved that you were from the stupid
gene pool.
wrote:
> On 5/28/2013 11:26 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
> >> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> light is not an object.
>
> >> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> >> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> >> change of the distance between two things.
>
> >> kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> > One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> > "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> > But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> > otherwise it would flood all the world"
>
> i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books. people who
> should not contribute to the gene pool usually do something stupid
> enough to remove themselves from the gene pool before making progeny.
ROTFLOL...I guess that your parents got you through the stupid gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 28 May 2013 11:10:07 -0500
>
> >> On 5/25/2013 12:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> light is not an object.
>
> >> kenseto has his own language for 'object'.
>
> >> it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate of
> >> change of the distance between two things.
>
> >> kenseto will now tell you that light is not a thing, either.
>
> > One already gone, famous and respected czech actor once said:
>
> > "The fight against human stupidity can never be won.
> > But we cannot afford to stop fighting,
> > otherwise it would flood all the world"
>
> i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books. people who
> should not contribute to the gene pool usually do something stupid
> enough to remove themselves from the gene pool before making progeny.
pool accidentally. What you said proved that you were from the stupid
gene pool.
Absolutely Vertical
May 29, 2013, 8:25:24 AM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 6:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 28, 10:40 am, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/25/2013 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>>>> Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
>>
>>>> CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>>
>>> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
>>> contradictory definitions.
>>
>> and because closing speed and light speed are both defined, kenseto
>> says, they must mean the same thing.
>>
>> lol. what a maroon.
>
> The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> speed.
no it isn't. closing speed is a well defined quantity (and has been for
> On May 28, 10:40 am, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/25/2013 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>>>> Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
>>
>>>> CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>>
>>> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
>>> contradictory definitions.
>>
>> and because closing speed and light speed are both defined, kenseto
>> says, they must mean the same thing.
>>
>> lol. what a maroon.
>
> The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> speed.
centuries) between _any_ two things, whether one of those things is
light or not.
> ...the speed of light is isotropic.
> Closing speed says that the
> speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
even know what closing speed means.
lol. what a maroon.
Absolutely Vertical
May 29, 2013, 8:28:29 AM5/29/13
to
On 5/28/2013 8:26 PM, hanson wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
homicidal? perhaps you don't understand the principle behind the darwin
> hanson wrote:
> What power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
awards. in those cases, people do something stupid to _themselves_ to
remove _themselves_ from the gene pool. that's not homicide.
>>
> Don't such a bigot, Fatso. After all you do not
> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
universe. this has to do with the psychosis i mentioned before.
Absolutely Vertical
May 29, 2013, 8:30:16 AM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 12:10 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
> Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
> no? <shrug>
don't you think, koobeewublee, that your desperation for attention is so
> The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
> Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
> no? <shrug>
bad that you welcome animosity and hatred, because at least that's
attention? don't you think that's a sad commentary on yourself?
Poutnik
May 29, 2013, 11:15:24 AM5/29/13
to
kenseto posted Wed, 29 May 2013 04:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
> The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
> speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
closing speed is derived from 2 speeds relative to the frame.
One or both speeds can be light speeds.
Light speed is isotropic.
Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
Closing speed CAN be isotropic, if derived from 2 light speeds,
or from 1 light speeds and 1 zero speeds of massive object.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
May 29, 2013, 11:15:26 AM5/29/13
to
kenseto posted Wed, 29 May 2013 04:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
> > it's been also pointed out that closing speed is defined as the rate
> > of change of the distance between two things.
>
> Hey idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between an object
> light fronts from different directions. That's why the speed of light
> is measured to be isotropic in all frames. Gee you are stupid.
>
CS = sqrt ( 2c^2 - 2c^2 * cos ( alfa )) =
c * sqrt ( 2 ( 1 - cos (alfa ))
--
Poutnik
rotchm
May 29, 2013, 11:40:14 AM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 7:52 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> closing speed is derived from light
> speed....
Nope. Can you define closing speed?
> closing speed is derived from light
> speed....
> the speed of light is isotropic.
It took you over 20 years to be able to correctly regurgitate that
back out of your mouth.
> Closing speed says that the speed of light is not
> isotropic if it is measured directly.
In your discussions here on CS, you havent once defined it. Why is
that?
Its been two weeks now. Can you now give the definition of 'closing
speed'?
Sam Wormley
May 29, 2013, 11:44:29 AM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/13 6:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
> the speed of light is isotropic
Progress!
> the speed of light is isotropic
Progress!
hanson
May 29, 2013, 1:38:20 PM5/29/13
to
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 28, 6:26 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
Fatso, the "Absolutely Testicle" Ersatz Rabbi wrote:
> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
> > the gene pool before making progeny.
> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
hanson wrote:
On May 28, 6:26 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
Fatso, the "Absolutely Testicle" Ersatz Rabbi wrote:
> > i believe in the principle behind the darwin awards books.
> > people who should not contribute to the gene pool usually
> > do something stupid enough to remove themselves from
> > the gene pool before making progeny.
> > in kenseto's case, unfortunately, this did not happen.
> > kenseto is not smart enough to do something stupid
> > enough to remove himself from the gene pool.
>
> AV, what power does Ken Seto have over you that cause
> you to resort to notions with homicidal undertones?
>
>
KW wrote:
The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
>
> Fatso, don't such a bigot. After all you do not
> have to live in , nor even visits Ken Seto's universe.
> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
>
> Celebrate Ken Seto's Weltbild and have a laugh,
> just like I laugh about yours, Fatso... ahahahahanson
>
KW wrote:
Is this Absolutely Testicle aka absolutely imbecile PD
the ex-college professor of physics? <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
Is this Absolutely Testicle aka absolutely imbecile PD
the ex-college professor of physics? <shrug>
>
KW, I addressed that in my previous post.
>
KW wrote:
Koobee Wublee recently trapped a hacker to Denmark who was trying to
hack into Koobee Wublee�s computer using Remote Desktop. Paul
KW wrote:
Koobee Wublee recently trapped a hacker to Denmark who was trying to
Andersen, another failed college professor, or Dirk van de Moortel aka
the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
>
KW, check out poster "Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk>,
with whom many exchanges took place which aggravated
him in Spring & Summer 2011. "Chris.B" was an USXchange
student in Denmark, etc... and he still may have a hard-on.
If you can ascertain that he was a hacker like, allegedly,
VDmoortel (acc, to Andro) or "Mike Varney" who got
reprimanded for his hacking by his professor,...
then get such hackers put onto the FBI-DHS' watch list.
hanson
May 29, 2013, 2:57:40 PM5/29/13
to
Homicidal Culprit Fatso, "Absolutely Vertical"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped AV's pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, keep on with parroting your textbook cut&pastes.
It's more fun to see you eating your book-worm diet.
Thanks for the laugh, you Dreidel.... ahahahahahanson
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped AV's pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, keep on with parroting your textbook cut&pastes.
It's more fun to see you eating your book-worm diet.
Thanks for the laugh, you Dreidel.... ahahahahahanson
Absolutely Vertical
May 29, 2013, 3:12:53 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 1:57 PM, hanson wrote:
> Homicidal Culprit Fatso, "Absolutely Vertical"
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snipped AV's pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
why do you feel the need to snip what i say? is it embarrassing to you
> Homicidal Culprit Fatso, "Absolutely Vertical"
> <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snipped AV's pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
to leave it there?
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, keep on with parroting your textbook cut&pastes.
textbook, hatso?
or would you like to snip that too?
hanson
May 29, 2013, 5:22:28 PM5/29/13
to
The Homicidal Culprit "Absolutely Vertical"-Fatso,
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped AV's 2nd pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped AV's 2nd pitiful & unsuccessful self-exculpation attempts>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, keep on with parroting your textbook cut&pastes.
hanson wrote:
Fatso, keep on with parroting your textbook cut&pastes.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 29, 2013, 5:26:29 PM5/29/13
to
you,ve never evinced a "hypothesis;"
you are like fignewton with his "hypothesis non fingo;"
you won't lift a finger, except for some quadratics;
yeeha -- you win, again.
you are like fignewton with his "hypothesis non fingo;"
you won't lift a finger, except for some quadratics;
yeeha -- you win, again.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 29, 2013, 5:50:51 PM5/29/13
to
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:489aad88-b301-49b1...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
========================================================
You?
You're too timid to write "fuck you" to the cunts, and anyway they
love your stupid aether, proven wrong by MMX. "Fvck" is fucking lame.
If you want death wishes you have to prove the bastards wrong
AND call them cunts, then they'll really hate you the way they do me.
The best you can manage is the lame shrug you plagiarised from
Roberts. Even the cackling hanson licks your arse.
You are quite safe from death wishes, you are one of them.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
news:489aad88-b301-49b1...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
no? <shrug>
You?
You're too timid to write "fuck you" to the cunts, and anyway they
love your stupid aether, proven wrong by MMX. "Fvck" is fucking lame.
If you want death wishes you have to prove the bastards wrong
AND call them cunts, then they'll really hate you the way they do me.
The best you can manage is the lame shrug you plagiarised from
Roberts. Even the cackling hanson licks your arse.
You are quite safe from death wishes, you are one of them.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 29, 2013, 9:23:43 PM5/29/13
to
MMX, on page one, mentions the anomaly, so that
it is apprently not "no result."
> love your stupid aether, proven wrong by MMX.
electrons are trying to destroy the aethertheory!
so are positrons!
it is apprently not "no result."
> love your stupid aether, proven wrong by MMX.
so are positrons!
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 9:40:19 AM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 8:25 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
stupid.
>
> - Show quoted text -
wrote:
> On 5/29/2013 6:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:40 am, Absolutely Vertical
> > <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2013 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> >>>>> Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
>
> >>>> CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> >>> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> >>> contradictory definitions.
>
> >> and because closing speed and light speed are both defined, kenseto
> >> says, they must mean the same thing.
>
> >> lol. what a maroon.
>
> > The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> > speed.
>
> no it isn't. closing speed is a well defined quantity (and has been for
> centuries) between _any_ two things, whether one of those things is
> light or not.
No idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between light
> On 5/29/2013 6:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:40 am, Absolutely Vertical
> > <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2013 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> On May 25, 7:22 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Koobee Wublee posted Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> >>>>> Same answer to Tom, too. There is no such thing as closing speed.
>
> >>>> CS is defined, therefore there is, no matter how you like it or not.
>
> >>> Yes light speed is also defined....so that means that SR claim
> >>> contradictory definitions.
>
> >> and because closing speed and light speed are both defined, kenseto
> >> says, they must mean the same thing.
>
> >> lol. what a maroon.
>
> > The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> > speed.
>
> no it isn't. closing speed is a well defined quantity (and has been for
> centuries) between _any_ two things, whether one of those things is
> light or not.
fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
stupid.
>
> > ...the speed of light is isotropic.
>
> those six words are the only correct things you said.
>
> > Closing speed says that the
> > speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
>
> no, it does not. that's just plain wrong. it must be because you don't
> even know what closing speed means.
>
> lol. what a maroon.- Hide quoted text -
> > ...the speed of light is isotropic.
>
> those six words are the only correct things you said.
>
> > Closing speed says that the
> > speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
>
> no, it does not. that's just plain wrong. it must be because you don't
> even know what closing speed means.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 9:55:09 AM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 11:15 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Wed, 29 May 2013 04:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> > speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
> > speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
>
> surprisingly not.
> closing speed is derived from 2 speeds relative to the frame.
> One or both speeds can be light speeds.
But there is no difference in closing speeds between light fronts from
> kenseto posted Wed, 29 May 2013 04:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> > speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
> > speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
>
> surprisingly not.
> closing speed is derived from 2 speeds relative to the frame.
> One or both speeds can be light speeds.
any directions and any object.
>
> Light speed is isotropic.
> Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> Light speed is isotropic.
> Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
> Closing speed CAN be isotropic, if derived from 2 light speeds,
> or from 1 light speeds and 1 zero speeds of massive object.
possibilities. That's not scientific.
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 10:07:29 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On May 29, 8:25 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > no it isn't. closing speed is a well defined quantity (and has been for
> > centuries) between _any_ two things, whether one of those things is
> > light or not.
>
> No idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between light
> fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
> closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid.
Light is special just at some aspects, not in all ones.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 10:09:49 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On May 29, 11:15�am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > kenseto posted Wed, 29 May 2013 04:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > > The moron is on your part. closing speed is derived from light
> > > speed....the speed of light is isotropic. Closing speed says that the
> > > speed of light is not isotropic if it is measured directly.
> >
> > surprisingly not.
> > closing speed is derived from 2 speeds relative to the frame.
> > One or both speeds can be light speeds.
>
> But there is no difference in closing speeds between light fronts from
> any directions and any object.
whatever number of times, without understanding included terms.
> >
> > Light speed is isotropic.
> > Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
>
> Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
>
> > Closing speed CAN be isotropic, if derived from 2 light speeds,
> > or from 1 light speeds and 1 zero speeds of massive object.
>
> Closing speed is alway isotropic. You are trying to claim both
> possibilities. That's not scientific.
Scientific is understanding definition of therms you use.
> > Closing speed CAN be isotropic, if derived from 2 light speeds,
> > or from 1 light speeds and 1 zero speeds of massive object.
>
> Closing speed is alway isotropic. You are trying to claim both
> possibilities. That's not scientific.
You do not.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 10:13:25 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Light speed is isotropic.
> > Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
>
> Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
>
Only in case the object is
> > Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
>
> Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
>
isotropically moving to all directions simulataneously.
What would be considered by most people as nonsense,
but at you, Ken, I am not so sure.
You are omnipotential.
--
Poutnik
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 11:12:52 AM5/30/13
to
observer A is the simple addtion or substraction of their relative
motions wrt A. Closing speed between light fronts and an object moving
wrt A is predicted by using the LT or inverse LT. The result is:
isotropy is maintained.
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 11:15:28 AM5/30/13
to
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 11:17:47 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On May 30, 10:07 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 29, 8:25 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > no it isn't. closing speed is a well defined quantity (and has been for
> > > > centuries) between _any_ two things, whether one of those things is
> > > > light or not.
> >
> > > No idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between light
> > > fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
> > > closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
> > > stupid.
> >
> > Light front is object like any else, just moving by speed c.
> > Light is special just at some aspects, not in all ones.
> >
>
> No closing speed between two material objects as predicted by a third
> observer A is the simple addtion or substraction of their relative
> motions wrt A.
but just this one.
> Closing speed between light fronts and an object moving
> wrt A is predicted by using the LT or inverse LT. The result is:
> isotropy is maintained.
from one frame to another.
Closing speed is evaluated in the only, single frame.
No other frame is considered, no Lt is needed.
--
Poutnik
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 11:18:16 AM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 10:13 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > > Light speed is isotropic.
> > > Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
>
> > Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> > object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
>
> Only in case the object is
> isotropically moving to all directions simulataneously.
No the LT or inverse LT predicts that closing speed is isotropic in
> kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > > Light speed is isotropic.
> > > Closing speed is not generally isotropic, as it is not light speed.
>
> > Sigh....there is no difference in closing speed between light and any
> > object. Therefore closing speed is also isotropic.
>
> Only in case the object is
> isotropically moving to all directions simulataneously.
all cases.
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 11:18:55 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Old definition on closing speed does not apply to light.
No need to modify for the light.
--
Poutnik
Sam Wormley
May 30, 2013, 11:20:58 AM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/13 10:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No the LT or inverse LT predicts that closing speed is isotropic in
> all cases.
Your brain is all jumbled up, Ken--The is no closing speed in
> No the LT or inverse LT predicts that closing speed is isotropic in
> all cases.
relativity theory.
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 11:21:33 AM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 08:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
--
Poutnik
Koobee Wublee
May 30, 2013, 12:19:26 PM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 10:38 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Danish Telecom --- his ISP. Yesterday (May 29), another computer was
attacked using Remote Desktop as well. The IP was 137.116.227.157
which is Microsoft Hosting located in Kansas --- another ISP. Koobee
Wublee does not think these events are random. The Einstein
Dingleberries really have a strong death wish on the ones able to rub
these Dinglerries’s faces in their own feces. <shrug>
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
> > Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
> > no? <shrug>
>
> > The hatred towards Mr. Seto is obviously so rampant. However, Koobee
> > Wublee would think Koobee Wublee should attract more death wishes,
> > no? <shrug>
>
> > Koobee Wublee recently trapped a hacker to Denmark who was trying to
> > hack into Koobee Wublee s computer using Remote Desktop. Paul
> > Andersen, another failed college professor, or Dirk van de Moortel aka
> > the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
>
> KW, check out poster "Chris.B" <chri...@nypost.dk>,
> > the sperm lover seems to be the prime suspect. <shrug>
>
> with whom many exchanges took place which aggravated
> him in Spring & Summer 2011. "Chris.B" was an USXchange
> student in Denmark, etc... and he still may have a hard-on.
> If you can ascertain that he was a hacker like, allegedly,
> VDmoortel (acc, to Andro) or "Mike Varney" who got
> reprimanded for his hacking by his professor,...
> then get such hackers put onto the FBI-DHS' watch list.
The hacker from Denmark on May 24 had an IP of 62.243.46.135 which is
> him in Spring & Summer 2011. "Chris.B" was an USXchange
> student in Denmark, etc... and he still may have a hard-on.
> If you can ascertain that he was a hacker like, allegedly,
> VDmoortel (acc, to Andro) or "Mike Varney" who got
> reprimanded for his hacking by his professor,...
> then get such hackers put onto the FBI-DHS' watch list.
Danish Telecom --- his ISP. Yesterday (May 29), another computer was
attacked using Remote Desktop as well. The IP was 137.116.227.157
which is Microsoft Hosting located in Kansas --- another ISP. Koobee
Wublee does not think these events are random. The Einstein
Dingleberries really have a strong death wish on the ones able to rub
these Dinglerries’s faces in their own feces. <shrug>
Melvin Barnes
May 30, 2013, 12:36:16 PM5/30/13
to
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> The Einstein Dingleberries really
> have a strong death wish on the ones able to rub these Dinglerries’s
> faces in their own feces. <shrug>
I cannot see why a relativists would connect to your computer. With
> The Einstein Dingleberries really
> have a strong death wish on the ones able to rub these Dinglerries’s
> faces in their own feces. <shrug>
windows remote desktop? LOL, this must come from other direction. Beside
that, the relativists are not hacking inclined I guess.
Absolutely Vertical
May 30, 2013, 1:24:24 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/2013 8:40 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between light
> fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
> closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid.
no, the past definition is not for material objects. it's for any two
> No idiot....there is no difference in closing speed between light
> fronts from different direction and any object. The past difinition on
> closing speed is for two material objects. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid.
things.
sorry, ken, but your reality distortion field is kicking you off the planet.
lol.
Absolutely Vertical
May 30, 2013, 1:25:25 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/2013 8:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Closing speed is alway isotropic. You are trying to claim both
> possibilities. That's not scientific.
no, closing speed is not always isotropic. sometimes it is, sometimes it
> Closing speed is alway isotropic. You are trying to claim both
> possibilities. That's not scientific.
isn't. that's not unscientific.
what a goof.
Absolutely Vertical
May 30, 2013, 1:28:45 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/2013 10:15 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Old definition on closing speed does not apply to light.
of course it does. it applies to any two things. is light not a thing?
> Old definition on closing speed does not apply to light.
you are _such_ a laughingstock.
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 4:26:47 PM5/30/13
to
objects does not apply to light.
kenseto
May 30, 2013, 4:27:59 PM5/30/13
to
Poutnik
May 30, 2013, 4:38:30 PM5/30/13
to
kenseto posted Thu, 30 May 2013 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
--
Poutnik
Absolutely Vertical
May 30, 2013, 5:11:00 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/2013 3:26 PM, kenseto wrote:
> No ..no difference in closing speeds of light and thus definition for
> objects does not apply to light.
>
hallmark of the schizophrenic. 'i reject your reality and substitute my
> No ..no difference in closing speeds of light and thus definition for
> objects does not apply to light.
>
own.'
rotchm
May 30, 2013, 11:42:41 PM5/30/13
to
??
Can you tell us what was the past and present definition of closing
speed?
> is for two material objects.
No. It was for anything, material or not.
> Gee I am so fucking stupid.
You got that one right.
Can you tell us what was the past and present definition of closing
speed?
> is for two material objects.
> Gee I am so fucking stupid.
You got that one right.
kenseto
May 31, 2013, 10:03:01 AM5/31/13
to
On May 30, 5:11 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
No idiot... schizophrenic is claiming something that is not measurable.
wrote:
Absolutely Vertical
May 31, 2013, 11:26:13 AM5/31/13
to
you are _such_ a goofball.
0 new messages