On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 19:49:25 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:56:32 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 15:24:49 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 8/1/2023 1:07 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 05:21:55 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > > >> On 7/31/2023 9:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > >>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 15:38:26 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> Paul is right. Evidence against relativity would be more than welcome,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Paul is a piece of lying shit, just like you, stupid Mike,
> > > > >>> and the mumble of your idiot guru has been proven
> > > > >>> inconsistent; your (or his) moronic rants are not changing
> > > > >>> anything.
> > > >
> > > > >> If this "mumble of the idiot guru" has been proven inconsistent, why
> > > > >> hasn't anyone provided any proof of this purported inconsistency here?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've repeated it dosens of times, stupid Mike.
> > > > You've repeated lots of crap hundreds (thousands?) of times.
> > > And I've also repeated a proof of inconsistency of the mumble
> > > of your idiot guru dosens of times, stupid Mike.
> > All the relativists can say is, "duh experiments, duh texts, duh math."
> And speaking of math, it's always good to remind that
> their insane guru has announced its oldest, very important
> part false, as it didn't want to fit his mad delusions.
Yes, Einstein's science by decree. We have to pretend time is a spatial dimension.

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> >> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> >> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> >> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......"
> >> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> >> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> >> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> >> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> >> the> experiment.
> > If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> > force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
>
> What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> >
> > This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> > 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> > move the stone away from the center. The combination
> > of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
>
> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> string is cut).
>
> Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> could happen would be life imprisonment.

But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
They almost killed someone by accident.
All of the actresses, except one,
were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.

This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,

Jan

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > >> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> > >> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> > >> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......."
> > >> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> > >> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> > >> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> > >> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> > >> the> experiment.
> > > If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> > > force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
> >
> > What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> > >
> > > This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> > > 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> > > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> > > move the stone away from the center. The combination
> > > of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
> >
> > Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> > string is cut).
> >
> > Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> > argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> > test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> > apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> > should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> > arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> > the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> > words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> > might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> > but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> > could happen would be life imprisonment.
>
> But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
> This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
> for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
> They almost killed someone by accident.
> All of the actresses, except one,
> were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
> The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.

You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
>
> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
>
> Jan

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:50:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/24/23 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 8:05:49 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> >> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
> Except, of course, we do use the same unit of time in every inertial
> frame: 1 second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of
> the ground state of Cs133.

No matter how many cycles you use, 9,192,631,770 cycles will have a different
Time (absolute time) connect in different frames.

> > Time dilation involves using a different unit of measure for time in
> > one frame than another without converting to a common unit or the
> > speeds would differ due to relative motion. Relativity is that
> > ridiculous.
> This is just flat-out WRONG. Your FANTASIES are "that ridiculous". You
> REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
>
> Tom Roberts

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:53 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 7/27/2023 3:57 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/26/2023 7:46 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/25/2023 11:35 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/24/2023 11:27 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>> Because a constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
> >>>>>>>> second) that can claim to be constant in all frames For example:
> >>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A /= 1 second in frame B
> >>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A=gamma second in frame B
> >>>>>>>> Obviously these equations shows that there is no clock time unit
> >>>>>>>> (including a clock second) that can claim that the speed of light is
> >>>>>>>> a universal constant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a sign that the person who
> >>>>>>> claims that something is obvious has no evidence, or even coherent
> >>>>>>> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it as if it were an argument for
> >>>>>>> whatever claptrap he is pushing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly. Ken tries to blow off the gaping hole in his argument by
> >>>>>> stating his conclusion from his misunderstanding is "obvious". The
> >>>>>> gaping hole? Ken has no understanding on what SR says about time
> >>>>>> dilation as he states things like a second in frame A is gamma seconds
> >>>>>> in frame B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why don't you the;; us what SR really says.
>
> >>>> English please, Stupid Ken, not gibberish.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike,,,every time you don't have an answer to my question, you just say that that's not what SR says. So I asked you to tell us what does SR says.
>
> >> And every time I tell you what SR really says, but you ignore it and
> >> repeat your incorrect claims about SR. You then claim SR is wrong
> >> because your claims about SR are wrong (which they are).
> >>
> >> For the zillionth time, if observers A and B are in mutual relative
> >> motion, A will measure/observe/see B's clock as running slow and B will
> >> measure/observe/see A's clock as running slow. You could have looked
> >> this up yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
> >
> > Ah so it is mutual time dilation we are talking. OK here's my comments:
> > when A and B are rejoined
> Once again, this is NOT mutual time dilation if A and B can rejoin!

I don't care if they are rejoin or not......clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The only exception is that if you specified that they are in the same state of inertial motion, But no such pair available in a gravity environment.

> Mutual time dilation is only valid for inertial motion. If A and B are
> in inertial motion relative to each other, they can meet at most ONCE.
> If they meet (x y z coordinates are the same at the same time) and are
> moving inertially, they will move away from each other forever after
> that. Impossible for them to "rejoin" because one would have to turn
> around, which is not inertial motion.
>
> Of course you are really talking about the traveling twin paradox, not
> mutual time dilation. Apparently you don't even know the difference. The
> traveling twin paradox always has a turnaround event of some sort which
> is NOT inertial. It could be ordinary acceleration where a twin slows
> and then reverses, "instantaneous" speed change (not realistic, because
> of infinite acceleration) or a frame jump from a departing frame to an
> approaching frame. The point is these are not inertial and cannot be
> analyzed as mutual time dilation, even if the other legs of the trip
> could be.
> > each will accumulated a different number of seconds.
> > This mean that one of them was really accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than
> > the other.
> > How can mutual time dilation explain this??????
> Because this is the twin paradox, mutual time dilation doesn't apply
> because of the turnaround event.
> > Can we just say that A and B are accumulating clock seconds at different
> > rates during relative motion?
> No, "we" cannot say that, not without being wrong.
>
> Learn the difference between the twin paradox and mutual time dilation.

On 8/1/2023 9:49 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

> No matter how many cycles you use, 9,192,631,770 cycles will have a different
> Time (absolute time) connect in different frames.

Assertions are not a valid argument, Stupid Ken.

On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 05:08:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 9:49 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > No matter how many cycles you use, 9,192,631,770 cycles will have a different
> > Time (absolute time) connect in different frames.
> Assertions are not a valid argument, Stupid Ken.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > >> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> > > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> > > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> > > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> > > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> > > >> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> > > >> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> > > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> > > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......"
> > > >> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> > > >> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> > > >> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> > > >> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> > > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> > > >> the> experiment.
> > > > If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> > > > force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
> > >
> > > What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> > > >
> > > > This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> > > > 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> > > > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> > > > move the stone away from the center. The combination
> > > > of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
> > >
> > > Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> > > string is cut).
> > >
> > > Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> > > argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> > > test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> > > apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> > > should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> > > arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> > > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> > > words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> > > might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> > > but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> > > could happen would be life imprisonment.
> >
> > But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
> > This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
> > for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
> > They almost killed someone by accident.
> > All of the actresses, except one,
> > were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
> > The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.
>
> You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
> >
> > This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> > of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,

-Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
and not with your muddle mechanics,

Jan

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > >> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> > > > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> > > > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> > > > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> > > > >> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> > > > >> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> > > > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> > > > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......."
> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> > > > >> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> > > > >> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> > > > >> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> > > > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> > > > >> the> experiment.
> > > > > If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> > > > > force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
> > > >
> > > > What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> > > > >
> > > > > This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> > > > > 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> > > > > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> > > > > move the stone away from the center. The combination
> > > > > of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
> > > >
> > > > Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> > > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> > > > string is cut).
> > > >
> > > > Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> > > > argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> > > > test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> > > > apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> > > > should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> > > > arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> > > > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> > > > words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> > > > might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> > > > but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> > > > could happen would be life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
> > > This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
> > > for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
> > > They almost killed someone by accident.
> > > All of the actresses, except one,
> > > were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
> > > The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.
> >
> > You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
> > >
> > > This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> > > of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
> and not with your muddle mechanics,

When the string is cut the stone will fly off in a tangential direction.

>
> Jan

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > > > >> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> > > > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> > > > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> > > > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> > > > >> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> > > > >> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> > > > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> > > > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......."
> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> > > > >> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> > > > >> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> > > > >> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> > > > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> > > > >> the> experiment.
> > > > > If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> > > > > force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
> > > >
> > > > What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> > > > >
> > > > > This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> > > > > 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> > > > > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> > > > > move the stone away from the center. The combination
> > > > > of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
> > > >
> > > > Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> > > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> > > > string is cut).
> > > >
> > > > Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> > > > argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> > > > test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> > > > apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> > > > should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> > > > arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> > > > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> > > > words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> > > > might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> > > > but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> > > > could happen would be life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
> > > This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
> > > for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
> > > They almost killed someone by accident.
> > > All of the actresses, except one,
> > > were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
> > > The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.
> >
> > You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
> > >
> > > This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> > > of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
> and not with your muddle mechanics,

We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years. I am saying that gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.This causes an attractive force between them.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix and thus there exists a repulsive effect between them.

Gravity is the result of the above opposing forces and that's why the moon keep on orbiting the earth.

On 2023-08-06 23:49:48 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >
>>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > > On
>>> 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:> > > >> > > > > On Monday,
>>> July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:> > > > >> On
>>> 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,> > >
>>> > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> > >
>>> > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a>
>>> >>> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
>>> second)> > that>> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames
>>> For example:> > 1 second in>> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame
>>> B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second> > > > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc>
>>> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a> > > > >> sign that
>>> the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no> > > > >>
>>> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it>
>>> > > > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is
>>> pushing.> >> > > > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these
>>> equations show that......"> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no
>>> coherent argument, just an insult.>> I> > > > >> find myself wondering
>>> what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>> > > > >> the string
>>> that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>> > > > >>
>>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has> > >
>>> > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it
>>> move> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe
>>> you could do> > > > >> the> experiment.> > > > > If you cut the string
>>> the other force (repulsive force) takes over and> > > > > force the
>>> stone to go away in a tangential direction..> > > >> > > > What causes
>>> it to "take over" at that exact moment?> > > > >> > > > > This means
>>> that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:> > > > >
>>> 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center> > > >
>>> > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to> >
>>> > > > move the stone away from the center. The combination> > > > > of
>>> these two forces makes the stone go around the center> > > >> > > >
>>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you> >
>>> > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before
>>> the> > > > string is cut).> > > >> > > > Thinking you were going to
>>> follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to> > > > argue that the stone
>>> would go out radially, I was going to suggest a> > > > test we could do
>>> together, except that I suspect we live rather far> > > > apart, with
>>> an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it> > > > should
>>> turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th> > > >
>>> arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in
>>> the> > > > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I
>>> will stand> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows.
>>> Then you let go at> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it
>>> hits me then with my dying> > > > words I shall say "Newton was wrong;
>>> muddle mechanics is right". This> > > > might have the disadvantage for
>>> you that you might be tried for murder,> > > > but France abolished the
>>> death penalty decades ago, so the worst that> > > > could happen would
>>> be life imprisonment.> > >> > > But innocent bystanders might get
>>> hurt.> > > This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions> > >
>>> for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.> > > They almost killed
>>> someone by accident.> > > All of the actresses, except one,> > > were
>>> quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.> > > The one who
>>> got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.> >> > You
>>> have no argument so you tried to change the subject.> > >> > > This btw
>>> is a nice and readily available illustration> > > of how a swung heavy
>>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
>> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.>
>> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,> and not with your muddle
>> mechanics,
> When the string is cut the stone will fly off in a tangential direction.

In other words it will ignore muddle mechanics.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:14:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-06 23:49:48 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >
> >>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > > On
> >>> 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:> > > >> > > > > On Monday,
> >>> July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:> > > > >> On
> >>> 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,> > >
> >>> > >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> > >
> >>> > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a>
> >>> >>> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock
> >>> second)> > that>> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all frames
> >>> For example:> > 1 second in>> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1 second in frame
> >>> B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second> > > > >> in> >> frame B> > Oc>
> >>> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a> > > > >> sign that
> >>> the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no> > > > >>
> >>> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it>
> >>> > > > >> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is
> >>> pushing.> >> > > > >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these
> >>> equations show that......"> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no
> >>> coherent argument, just an insult.>> I> > > > >> find myself wondering
> >>> what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>> > > > >> the string
> >>> that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>> > > > >>
> >>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has> > >
> >>> > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it
> >>> move> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe
> >>> you could do> > > > >> the> experiment.> > > > > If you cut the string
> >>> the other force (repulsive force) takes over and> > > > > force the
> >>> stone to go away in a tangential direction..> > > >> > > > What causes
> >>> it to "take over" at that exact moment?> > > > >> > > > > This means
> >>> that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:> > > > >
> >>> 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center> > > >
> >>> > 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to> >
> >>> > > > move the stone away from the center. The combination> > > > > of
> >>> these two forces makes the stone go around the center> > > >> > > >
> >>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you> >
> >>> > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before
> >>> the> > > > string is cut).> > > >> > > > Thinking you were going to
> >>> follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to> > > > argue that the stone
> >>> would go out radially, I was going to suggest a> > > > test we could do
> >>> together, except that I suspect we live rather far> > > > apart, with
> >>> an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it> > > > should
> >>> turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th> > > >
> >>> arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in
> >>> the> > > > middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I
> >>> will stand> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows.
> >>> Then you let go at> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it
> >>> hits me then with my dying> > > > words I shall say "Newton was wrong;
> >>> muddle mechanics is right". This> > > > might have the disadvantage for
> >>> you that you might be tried for murder,> > > > but France abolished the
> >>> death penalty decades ago, so the worst that> > > > could happen would
> >>> be life imprisonment.> > >> > > But innocent bystanders might get
> >>> hurt.> > > This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions> > >
> >>> for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.> > > They almost killed
> >>> someone by accident.> > > All of the actresses, except one,> > > were
> >>> quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.> > > The one who
> >>> got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.> >> > You
> >>> have no argument so you tried to change the subject.> > >> > > This btw
> >>> is a nice and readily available illustration> > > of how a swung heavy
> >>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
> >> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.>
> >> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,> and not with your muddle
> >> mechanics,
> > When the string is cut the stone will fly off in a tangential direction..
> In other words it will ignore muddle mechanics.

Idiot.
>
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2023-08-07 09:54:20 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:14:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-06 23:49:48 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Wednesday, August
>> 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
>> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at
>> 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> >>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > > On> >>> 2023-07-24 17:39:02
>> +0000, Ken Seto said:> > > >> > > > > On Monday,> >>> July 24, 2023 at
>> 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:> > > > >> On> >>> 2023-07-24
>> 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,> > >> >>> > >>
>> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> > >> >>>
>> > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a>>
>> >>> >>> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock>
>> >>> second)> > that>> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all
>> frames> >>> For example:> > 1 second in>> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1
>> second in frame> >>> B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second> > > > >>
>> in> >> frame B> > Oc>> >>> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's
>> usually a> > > > >> sign that> >>> the person who>> >> claims that
>> something is obvious has no> > > > >>> >>> evidence, or even coherent>>
>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it>> >>> > > > >> as if it were
>> an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is> >>> pushing.> >> > > > >>
>> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these> >>> equations show
>> that......"> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no> >>> coherent
>> argument, just an insult.>> I> > > > >> find myself wondering> >>> what
>> you think will happen if you suddenly cut>> > > > >> the string> >>>
>> that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>> > > > >>>
>> >>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has>
>> > >> >>> > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or
>> will it> >>> move> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would
>> predict? Maybe> >>> you could do> > > > >> the> experiment.> > > > > If
>> you cut the string> >>> the other force (repulsive force) takes over
>> and> > > > > force the> >>> stone to go away in a tangential
>> direction..> > > >> > > > What causes> >>> it to "take over" at that
>> exact moment?> > > > >> > > > > This means> >>> that whirling a stone
>> requires the application of two forces:> > > > >> >>> 1. the string
>> keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center> > > >> >>> > 2. The
>> other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to> >> >>> > >
>> > move the stone away from the center. The combination> > > > > of> >>>
>> these two forces makes the stone go around the center> > > >> > > >>
>> >>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits
>> you> >> >>> > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it
>> doesn't (before> >>> the> > > > string is cut).> > > >> > > > Thinking
>> you were going to> >>> follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to> > >
>> > argue that the stone> >>> would go out radially, I was going to
>> suggest a> > > > test we could do> >>> together, except that I suspect
>> we live rather far> > > > apart, with> >>> an ocean and maybe a
>> continent between us. However, if it> > > > should> >>> turn out, to my
>> surprise, that you live in the 8th> > > >> >>> arrondissement of
>> Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in> >>> the> > > >
>> middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I> >>> will
>> stand> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows.> >>>
>> Then you let go at> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it>
>> >>> hits me then with my dying> > > > words I shall say "Newton was
>> wrong;> >>> muddle mechanics is right". This> > > > might have the
>> disadvantage for> >>> you that you might be tried for murder,> > > >
>> but France abolished the> >>> death penalty decades ago, so the worst
>> that> > > > could happen would> >>> be life imprisonment.> > >> > > But
>> innocent bystanders might get> >>> hurt.> > > This is what almost
>> happenend in the casting sessions> > >> >>> for the Apple 1984
>> commercial, in Hyde Park.> > > They almost killed> >>> someone by
>> accident.> > > All of the actresses, except one,> > > were> >>> quite
>> inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.> > > The one who> >>>
>> got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.> >> > You>
>> >>> have no argument so you tried to change the subject.> > >> > > This
>> btw> >>> is a nice and readily available illustration> > > of how a
>> swung heavy> >>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,> >> -Do- have a
>> look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.>> >> Reality,
>> like Athel said, agrees with Newton,> and not with your muddle> >>
>> mechanics,> > When the string is cut the stone will fly off in a
>> tangential direction.
>> In other words it will ignore muddle mechanics.
> Idiot.

When are you going to get around to correcting the lies at

https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-more-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering

Surely you don't want people to think you're dishonest?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 12:06:52 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-07 09:54:20 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:14:37 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-08-06 23:49:48 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Wednesday, August
> >> 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> Ken Seto
> >> <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at
> >> 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:> >> >>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > >> > > > On> >>> 2023-07-24 17:39:02
> >> +0000, Ken Seto said:> > > >> > > > > On Monday,> >>> July 24, 2023 at
> >> 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:> > > > >> On> >>> 2023-07-24
> >> 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,> > >> >>> > >>
> >> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> > >> >>>
> >> > >> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a>>
> >> >>> >>> > > > >> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock>
> >> >>> second)> > that>> > > > >> >> can claim to be constant in all
> >> frames> >>> For example:> > 1 second in>> > > > >> >> frame A /= 1
> >> second in frame> >>> B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second> > > > >>
> >> in> >> frame B> > Oc>> >>> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's
> >> usually a> > > > >> sign that> >>> the person who>> >> claims that
> >> something is obvious has no> > > > >>> >>> evidence, or even coherent>>
> >> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it>> >>> > > > >> as if it were
> >> an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is> >>> pushing.> >> > > > >>
> >> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these> >>> equations show
> >> that......"> > > > >> As I said, no evidence and no> >>> coherent
> >> argument, just an insult.>> I> > > > >> find myself wondering> >>> what
> >> you think will happen if you suddenly cut>> > > > >> the string> >>>
> >> that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>> > > > >>>
> >> >>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has>
> >> > >> >>> > >> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or
> >> will it> >>> move> > > > >> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would
> >> predict? Maybe> >>> you could do> > > > >> the> experiment.> > > > > If
> >> you cut the string> >>> the other force (repulsive force) takes over
> >> and> > > > > force the> >>> stone to go away in a tangential
> >> direction..> > > >> > > > What causes> >>> it to "take over" at that
> >> exact moment?> > > > >> > > > > This means> >>> that whirling a stone
> >> requires the application of two forces:> > > > >> >>> 1. the string
> >> keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center> > > >> >>> > 2. The
> >> other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to> >> >>> > >
> >> > move the stone away from the center. The combination> > > > > of> >>>
> >> these two forces makes the stone go around the center> > > >> > > >>
> >> >>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits
> >> you> >> >>> > > (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it
> >> doesn't (before> >>> the> > > > string is cut).> > > >> > > > Thinking
> >> you were going to> >>> follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to> > >
> >> > argue that the stone> >>> would go out radially, I was going to
> >> suggest a> > > > test we could do> >>> together, except that I suspect
> >> we live rather far> > > > apart, with> >>> an ocean and maybe a
> >> continent between us. However, if it> > > > should> >>> turn out, to my
> >> surprise, that you live in the 8th> > > >> >>> arrondissement of
> >> Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in> >>> the> > > >
> >> middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I> >>> will
> >> stand> > > > a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows.> >>>
> >> Then you let go at> > > > the moment where it is closest to me. If it>
> >> >>> hits me then with my dying> > > > words I shall say "Newton was
> >> wrong;> >>> muddle mechanics is right". This> > > > might have the
> >> disadvantage for> >>> you that you might be tried for murder,> > > >
> >> but France abolished the> >>> death penalty decades ago, so the worst
> >> that> > > > could happen would> >>> be life imprisonment.> > >> > > But
> >> innocent bystanders might get> >>> hurt.> > > This is what almost
> >> happenend in the casting sessions> > >> >>> for the Apple 1984
> >> commercial, in Hyde Park.> > > They almost killed> >>> someone by
> >> accident.> > > All of the actresses, except one,> > > were> >>> quite
> >> inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.> > > The one who> >>>
> >> got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.> >> > You>
> >> >>> have no argument so you tried to change the subject.> > >> > > This
> >> btw> >>> is a nice and readily available illustration> > > of how a
> >> swung heavy> >>> hammer will actually fly, by Newton,> >> -Do- have a
> >> look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.>> >> Reality,
> >> like Athel said, agrees with Newton,> and not with your muddle> >>
> >> mechanics,> > When the string is cut the stone will fly off in a
> >> tangential direction.
> >> In other words it will ignore muddle mechanics.
> > Idiot.
> When are you going to get around to correcting the lies at
>
> https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/469024/ken-h-seto-celebrates-more-than-five-decades-of-success-in-physics-and-chemical-engineering
>
>
> Surely you don't want people to think you're dishonest?

And when will you admit that the mumble of your
beloved idiot guru was inconsistent, as it was proven?

On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
>>>>>>> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
>>>>>>> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
>>>>>>> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
>>>>>>>>> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
>>>>>>>>> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
>>>>>>> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
>>>>>>> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
>>>>>>> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
>>>>>>> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
>>>>>>> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......"
>>>>>>> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
>>>>>>> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
>>>>>>> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
>>>>>>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
>>>>>>> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
>>>>>>> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
>>>>>>> the> experiment.
>>>>>> If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
>>>>>> force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
>>>>>
>>>>> What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
>>>>>> 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
>>>>>> 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
>>>>>> move the stone away from the center. The combination
>>>>>> of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
>>>>>
>>>>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
>>>>> (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
>>>>> string is cut).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
>>>>> argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
>>>>> test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
>>>>> apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
>>>>> should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
>>>>> arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
>>>>> middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
>>>>> a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
>>>>> the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
>>>>> words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
>>>>> might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
>>>>> but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
>>>>> could happen would be life imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>> But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
>>>> This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
>>>> for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
>>>> They almost killed someone by accident.
>>>> All of the actresses, except one,
>>>> were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
>>>> The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.
>>>
>>> You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
>>>>
>>>> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
>>>> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
>> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
>> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
>> and not with your muddle mechanics,
>
> We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.

As Newton himself PROVED that it can.

> I am saying that gravity is a composite force as follows:

Nobody cares what you say, since you are so ignorant of math and physics.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2023-07-24 17:39:02 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:30:42?PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-07-24 15:44:23 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, July 24,
> >>>>>>> 2023 at 11:27:46?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On
> >>>>>>> 2023-07-24 15:05:47 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > Why?> > Because a> >>
> >>>>>>> constant interval clock time unit ( including a clock second)> > that>
> >>>>>>>>> can claim to be constant in all frames For example:> > 1 second in>
> >>>>>>>>> frame A /= 1 second in frame B> > 1 second in frame A=gamma second
> >>>>>>> in> >> frame B> > Oc> >> "Obviously" is a warning word. It's usually a
> >>>>>>> sign that the person who>> >> claims that something is obvious has no
> >>>>>>> evidence, or even coherent>> >> arguments. Pentcho Valev often uses it
> >>>>>>> as if it were an argument for>> >> whatever claptrap he is pushing.> >
> >>>>>>> Hey idiot,,,,,,,I said that "obviously these equations show that......."
> >>>>>>> As I said, no evidence and no coherent argument, just an insult.>> I
> >>>>>>> find myself wondering what you think will happen if you suddenly cut>
> >>>>>>> the string that you are using to swing a stone around you: will the>
> >>>>>>> stone continue in a straight line* tangential to the circle it has
> >>>>>>> been> following, as Newton's first law would predict, or will it move
> >>>>>>> out> radially, as muddle mechanics would predict? Maybe you could do
> >>>>>>> the> experiment.
> >>>>>> If you cut the string the other force (repulsive force) takes over and
> >>>>>> force the stone to go away in a tangential direction..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What causes it to "take over" at that exact moment?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This means that whirling a stone requires the application of two forces:
> >>>>>> 1. the string keep on trying to pull the stone toward the center
> >>>>>> 2. The other force is the momentum of the stone keep on trying to
> >>>>>> move the stone away from the center. The combination
> >>>>>> of these two forces makes the stone go around the center
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Incoherent. Apparently you accept Newton's 1st law when it suits you
> >>>>> (after the string is cut) but you reject it when it doesn't (before the
> >>>>> string is cut).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thinking you were going to follow where muddle mechanics leads you, to
> >>>>> argue that the stone would go out radially, I was going to suggest a
> >>>>> test we could do together, except that I suspect we live rather far
> >>>>> apart, with an ocean and maybe a continent between us. However, if it
> >>>>> should turn out, to my surprise, that you live in the 8th
> >>>>> arrondissement of Marseilles then we can go ahead. You can stand in the
> >>>>> middle of a circle whirling a heavy stone around you, and I will stand
> >>>>> a few meters beyond the circle the stone follows. Then you let go at
> >>>>> the moment where it is closest to me. If it hits me then with my dying
> >>>>> words I shall say "Newton was wrong; muddle mechanics is right". This
> >>>>> might have the disadvantage for you that you might be tried for murder,
> >>>>> but France abolished the death penalty decades ago, so the worst that
> >>>>> could happen would be life imprisonment.
> >>>>
> >>>> But innocent bystanders might get hurt.
> >>>> This is what almost happenend in the casting sessions
> >>>> for the Apple 1984 commercial, in Hyde Park.
> >>>> They almost killed someone by accident.
> >>>> All of the actresses, except one,
> >>>> were quite inept at swinging a hammer, if capable at all.
> >>>> The one who got the job was an athlete with practice in discus throwing.
> >>>
> >>> You have no argument so you tried to change the subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> >>>> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
> >> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
> >> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
> >> and not with your muddle mechanics,
> >
> > We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.

Stupid Mike Newton didn't prove anything. He assumed t wrongly that gravity is a single attractive force.It is not. A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth for billions of years.
Whirling a stone in circles requires two forces.

> > I am saying that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> Nobody cares what you say, since you are so ignorant of math and physics.

On 8/7/23 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth
> for billions of years.

Yes, it can. Observably so.

> Whirling a stone in circles requires two forces.

Yes, or rather a single force that is not precisely radial but leads the
stone around the circle. But that's not at all the same, as the stone
experiences friction that the moon does not.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Tom Roberts

On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>>>>> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
>>>>>> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
>>>> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
>>>> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
>>>> and not with your muddle mechanics,
>>>
>>> We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
>> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.
>
> Stupid Mike Newton didn't prove anything.

He most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics class.

> He assumed t wrongly that gravity is a single attractive force.It is not.

He did not ASSUME that, he PROVED that! See how ignorant you are of gravity?

> A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth for billions of years.

Yet Newton PROVED that a single attractive force is all that's needed,
Stupid Ken. Just because you cannot understand it doesn't mean that it's
wrong. After all, you can't even understand 4th grade math.

> Whirling a stone in circles requires two forces.

And it was explained to you what the effects of air resistance and
friction are, which don't apply to the moon.
>
>>> I am saying that gravity is a composite force as follows:
>> Nobody cares what you say, since you are so ignorant of math and physics.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/23 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth
> > for billions of years.
> Yes, it can. Observably so.
No it can't. Gravty is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as follows:
1. The moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction in the aether called the E-Matrix.
This creates an attractive force between them.
2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the moon and the earth are confined to follow the
divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This has a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above opposing forces.

> > Whirling a stone in crcles requires two forces.
> Yes, or rather a single force that is not precisendihng ly radial but leads the
> stone around the circle. But that's not at all the same, as the stone
> experiences friction that the moon does not.
>
> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.
You need to open your mind and learn some new physics.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:57:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >>>>>> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
> >>>>>> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
> >>>> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
> >>>> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
> >>>> and not with your muddle mechanics,
> >>>
> >>> We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> >> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.
> >
> > Stupid Mike Newton didn't prove anything.
> He most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics class.

No he didn't prove anything. He provided a formula that gives approximate production. That doesn't prove that gravity is as he described.

> > He assumed t wrongly that gravity is a single attractive force.It is not.
> He did not ASSUME that, he PROVED that! See how ignorant you are of gravity?
> > A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth for billions of years.
> Yet Newton PROVED that a single attractive force is all that's needed,
> Stupid Ken. Just because you cannot understand it doesn't mean that it's
> wrong. After all, you can't even understand 4th grade math.
> > Whirling a stone in circles requires two forces.
> And it was explained to you what the effects of air resistance and
> friction are, which don't apply to the moon.
> >
> >>> I am saying that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >> Nobody cares what you say, since you are so ignorant of math and physics.

On 8/7/2023 6:17 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/7/23 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth
>>> for billions of years.
>> Yes, it can. Observably so.
> No it can't. Gravty is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as follows:
> 1. The moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction in the aether called the E-Matrix.
> This creates an attractive force between them.
> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the moon and the earth are confined to follow the
> divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This has a repulsive effect between them.
> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above opposing forces.
>
>>> Whirling a stone in crcles requires two forces.
>> Yes, or rather a single force that is not precisendihng ly radial but leads the
>> stone around the circle. But that's not at all the same, as the stone
>> experiences friction that the moon does not.
>>
>> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

> You need to open your mind and learn some new physics.
>
Sorry, Stupid Ken, that's not how science works. ALL physics, new or
old, require scientific observations and experimental evidence
supporting new claims. Since you have NEVER provided any such evidence
(and remember, assertions are NOT evidence!), there's NO reason
whatsoever for anyone to consider your bogus claims.

On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:57:16 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/7/2023 2:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:37 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2023 8:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:51:13 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:47:49?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> This btw is a nice and readily available illustration
>>>>>>>> of how a swung heavy hammer will actually fly, by Newton,
>>>>>> -Do- have a look at how a swung and released hammer actually flies.
>>>>>> Reality, like Athel said, agrees with Newton,
>>>>>> and not with your muddle mechanics,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about that a single attractive force of gravity can't make the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
>>>> As Newton himself PROVED that it can.
>>>
>>> Stupid Mike Newton didn't prove anything.
>> He most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics class.
>
> No he didn't prove anything.

Newton most certainly did! It is taught in every high school physics
class. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. It
only means your 3rd grade math skills are insufficient to understand it.

> He provided a formula that gives approximate production.

Except for relativity corrections from much later, it is EXACT. For low
speeds like the moon orbiting the earth, there is practically zero
difference between Newton's and Einstein's predictions.

> That doesn't prove that gravity is as he described.

The mathematical PROOF he created does prove gravity is as he described.

If you want to show two forces are necessary, you'll need to find an
error in Newton's mathematical proof first. With your third grade math
skills, good luck with that!

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 22:03:53 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/23 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth
> > for billions of years.
> Yes, it can. Observably so.

Your idiot guru has refuted this common sense prejudice.

On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 05:53:23 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/7/2023 6:17 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 8/7/23 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> A single attractive force cannot make the moon orbiting the earth
> >>> for billions of years.
> >> Yes, it can. Observably so.
> > No it can't. Gravty is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as follows:
> > 1. The moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction in the aether called the E-Matrix.
> > This creates an attractive force between them.
> > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the moon and the earth are confined to follow the
> > divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This has a repulsive effect between them.
> > 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above opposing forces.
> >
> >>> Whirling a stone in crcles requires two forces.
> >> Yes, or rather a single force that is not precisendihng ly radial but leads the
> >> stone around the circle. But that's not at all the same, as the stone
> >> experiences friction that the moon does not.
> >>
> >> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.
>
> > You need to open your mind and learn some new physics.
> >
> Sorry, Stupid Ken, that's not how science works. ALL physics, new or
> old, require scientific observations and experimental evidence
> supporting new claims.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie.

Atomic frames move below the speed of light in space.
If they can compete with lights absolute speed how
would they not have their own slower absolute motions?
At a motion black hole atoms compete with light speed.
Why aren't both those motions absolute then?