A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 12 Mar 2010 01:06 On Mar 11, 9:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:6181c1e6-9e5b-4a2f-b1ac-b0eecf689ae5(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 11, 7:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> . first you say it has Galilean transforms > > > I never said such an imbecility, > > You used Galilean formulas for the anisotropic speed of light. No, cretin The formulas I tried to teach you are the standard formulas for encoding light speed anisotropy. They originate from the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl papers. You are insane, dumbshit.
From: Dono. on 12 Mar 2010 01:09 On Mar 11, 2:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > Yes .. there are. The underlying 'reality' in LET is a simple 3D space with > Galilean transforms. Insane dumbfuck, what hallucinogenics are you on?
From: Inertial on 12 Mar 2010 01:41 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:a455b4c6-3da2-4a98-8e05-f9164ee24b00(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 9:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:6181c1e6-9e5b-4a2f-b1ac-b0eecf689ae5(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 11, 7:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> . first you say it has Galilean transforms >> >> > I never said such an imbecility, >> >> You used Galilean formulas for the anisotropic speed of light. > > No, cretin Yes. > The formulas I tried to teach you are the standard formulas for > encoding light speed anisotropy. Which uses Galilean transforms > They originate from the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl papers. They are just simple basic trig. > You are > insane, dumbshit. No .. I understand physics .. why don't you? You bluster enough about it.
From: Inertial on 12 Mar 2010 01:42 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:b2c70538-0b53-4293-9c7e-b44461f47e30(a)q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 2:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> Yes .. there are. The underlying 'reality' in LET is a simple 3D space >> with >> Galilean transforms. > > Insane dumbfuck, what hallucinogenics are you on? None .. I understand physics. You should try learning it sometime, so you can discuss rationally with those of us here who have. ATM you're just another crackpot like Ken.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Mar 2010 02:24
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b99e24c$0$27810$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:b2c70538-0b53-4293-9c7e-b44461f47e30(a)q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 11, 2:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yes .. there are. The underlying 'reality' in LET is a simple 3D space >>> with >>> Galilean transforms. >> >> Insane dumbfuck, what hallucinogenics are you on? > > None .. I understand physics. You should try learning it sometime, so you > can discuss rationally with those of us here who have. ATM you're just > another crackpot like Ken. > > I think that if he knew any physics, he would be posting stuff about physics. As it is, he just seems to want to have a fight with somebody about something. He doesn't care with whom or about what. Takes two to tango, Inertial. And you can pick your dance partner. |