On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> 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!

Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
Gee you are stupid.

On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> 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!
>
> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.

Assertions are not valid arguments. If you want to show two forces are
necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
mathematical proof first.

> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
> Gee you are stupid.

It has been explained to you many times why that's not a valid
comparison. I'll explain it again, in one word. Friction.

On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> 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!
>
> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around
> the earth for billions of years.
> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.

Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.
You need to offer some evidence.

> Gee you are stupid.

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

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> 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!
> >
> > Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around
> > the earth for billions of years.
> > Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.
> You need to offer some evidence.
>
> > Gee you are stupid.
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Why would Frames matter if the light is an absolute c in empty space?

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> 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 pid Mike,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!
> >
> > Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> Assertions are not valid arguments. If you want to show two forces are
> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
> mathematical proof first.

ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.

> > Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires t
wo forces.
> > Gee you are stupid.
> It has been explained to you many times why that's not a valid
> comparison. I'll explain it again, in one word. Friction.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> 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!
> >
> > Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around
> > the earth for billions of years.
> > Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.
> You need to offer some evidence.

No winder you failed math......you can't count too well.
>
> > Gee you are stupid.
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2023-08-14 16:52:12 +0000, Ken Seto said:

> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:>> > On Monday, August 7,
>> 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:> >> 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!> >> > Idiot, only one attractive
>> force will not enables the moon go around> > the earth for billions of
>> years.> > Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
>> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.>
>> You need to offer some evidence.
> No winder you failed math......you can't count too well.

I've no idea if it was 10 or 250 -- I didn't count. I have never failed
a maths exam.

The only exam I've ever failed in 80 years was my first attempt to get
a driving licence in the UK.

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

On 8/14/2023 12:50 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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 pid Mike,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!
>>>
>>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If you want to show two forces are
>> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
>> mathematical proof first.
>
> ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.

Once again, Stupid Ken, no. SR is derived from the two postulates.

Since you don't understand math, the SR derivation is meaningless to
you. But not to scientists.

On 8/14/2023 12:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around
>>> the earth for billions of years.
>>> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
>> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.
>> You need to offer some evidence.
>
> No winder you failed math......you can't count too well.

Speaking of failing math, who is it here who can't even do 4th grade
math? Hint: His initials are K. S.

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 07:06:18 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/14/2023 12:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-08-09 13:43:39 +0000, Ken Seto said:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> 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!
> >>>
> >>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around
> >>> the earth for billions of years.
> >>> Whirling a stone at the end of a string requires two forces.
> >> Repeating the same nonsense 100 times doesn't magically make it true.
> >> You need to offer some evidence.
> >
> > No winder you failed math......you can't count too well.
> Speaking of failing math, who is it here who can't even do 4th grade
> math?

Well, the whole of your bunch of idiots is asserting it
to be false - as it didn't want to fit the madness of
your mad guru.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:03:54 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/14/2023 12:50 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/7/2023 6:25 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> 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 pid Mike,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!
> >>>
> >>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> >> Assertions are not valid arguments. t If you want to show two forces are
> >> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
> >> mathematical proof first.
> >
> > ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.
> Once again, Stupid Ken, no. SR is derived from the two postulates.
argumen
Stupid Mike, postulates are assertions..
>
> Since you don't understand math, the SR derivation is meaningless to
> you. But not to scientists.

Again stupid Mike you can made your math to conform to any answers you want. The real
task is to come up with a physical system that obey all physical observations.
MODEL MECHANICS IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!

The speed of light is not constant in all frames.

It's slowing down , Sir.

in all frames, universally.

Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The speed of light is not constant in all frames.
>
> It's slowing down , Sir.
>
> in all frames, universally.
>
>
> Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere.

And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 02:28:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The speed of light is not constant in all frames.
> >
> > It's slowing down , Sir.
> >
> > in all frames, universally.
> >
> >
> > Meaning, it's slowing down everywhere.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

Al, poor trash, when you were provided
the p;roof of the inconsistency of your beloved Shit -
you've only got angry.

On 8/15/2023 9:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:03:54 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/14/2023 12:50 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>>>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. t If you want to show two forces are
>>>> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
>>>> mathematical proof first.
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.

>> Once again, Stupid Ken, no. SR is derived from the two postulates.
> argumen
> Stupid Mike, postulates are assertions..

Stupid Ken, the SR postulates are not asserted to be true, they have
been experimentally observed to be true, and assumed to be true for the
purpose of the SR paper. That's why they are postulates and not
assertions. The result is the derivation from the postulates, things
like time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, these are not
assertions.

Contrast that with your Muddle Mechanics. Not only do you assert that
two forces are required for orbiting without experimental evidence, that
outright conflicts with Newton's PROOF that only a single force is
needed. A postulate is assumed to be true for argumentative purposes
while your Muddle Mechanics starts off with a KNOWN falsehood.
>>
>> Since you don't understand math, the SR derivation is meaningless to
>> you. But not to scientists.
>
> Again stupid Mike you can made your math to conform to any answers you want.

No you can't. There is no way to make 2+2=5 even if I wanted that answer.

> The real
> task is to come up with a physical system that obey all physical observations.

No, the real task is to come up with a model which correctly predicts
observed outcomes within the domain of the model. Your Muddle Mechanics
doesn't even make predictions! (It can't; you can't even do the required
math)

> MODEL MECHANICS IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!

The question must be, what is the stupidest pseudoscience ever to be
posted to Usenet.

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 07:06:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 9:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:03:54 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2023 12:50 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>>>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> >>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. t If you want to show two forces are
> >>>> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
> >>>> mathematical proof first.
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.
>
> >> Once again, Stupid Ken, no. SR is derived from the two postulates.
> > argumen
> > Stupid Mike, postulates are assertions..
> Stupid Ken, the SR postulates are not asserted to be true, they have
> been experimentally observed to be true

Sorry, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can
believe such a nonsensical lie. Yes, your
postulates are asserted.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:06:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 9:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:03:54 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2023 12:50 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/9/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>>>> Idiot, only one attractive force will not enables the moon go around the earth for billions of years.
> >>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. t If you want to show two forces are
> >>>> necessary, you'll need to PROVE that, and find an error in Newton's
> >>>> mathematical proof first.
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL, stupid Mike, SR is baed on assertions.
>
> >> Once again, Stupid Ken, no. SR is derived from the two postulates.
> > argumen
> > Stupid Mike, postulates are assertions..
> Stupid Ken, the SR postulates are not asserted to be true, they have
> been experimentally observed to be true, and assumed to be true for the
> purpoMike se of the SR paper. That's why they are postulates and not
> assertions. The result is the derivation from the postulates, things
> like time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, these are not
> assertions.
Stupid Mike, you don't know what derivation mean. You need to assert to postulates before you can derive anything. Gee you are stupid.
>
> Contrast that with your Muddle Mechanics. Not only do you assert that
> two forces are required for orbiting without experimental evidence, that
> outright conflicts with Newton's PROOF that only a single force is
> needed. A postulate is assumed to be true for argumentative purposes
> while your Muddle Mechanics starts off with a KNOWN falsehood.

Stupid Mike.......one force cannot make an object go around in circles. Gravity is
composite of two forces.
>
> >> Since you don't understand math, the SR derivation is meaningless to
> >> you. But not to scientists. es.es
> >
> > Again stupid Mike you can made your math to conform to any answers you want.
> No you can't. There is no way to make 2+2=5 even if I wanted that answer.
> > The real
> > task is to come up with a physical system that obey all physical observations.
> No, the real task is to come up with a model which correctly predicts
> observed outcomes within the domain of the model. Your Muddle Mechanics
> doesn't even make predictions! (It can't; you can't even do the required
> math)
> > MODEL MECHANICS IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!
> The question must be, what is the stupidest pseudoscience ever to be
> posted to Usenet.