On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 9:19:16 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bodkin wrote:
> >> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
> >
> > So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
> I didn’t say the above. Please learn to use your usenet reader properly.
>
> I’m expressing the opinion of physicists. They are more informed than you.
> You have not read physics textbooks, as far as I can tell. I’ve read 90 and
> have 30 more in my library I’ll be getting to.
>
> This isn’t about intelligence or how big your brain is. It’s about
> EDUCATION on the subject. If you are talking about a subject you know
> nothing about, how much intelligence you have is irrelevant. You’re still
> operating from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is fixable, if you choose
> to do it. Stupidity is not fixable. Right now, you’re aiming for both.
> > I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess,
> > compared to my half brain.
> > Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
> > I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not
> > just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Its hard to respond as I am unable to "reply to author".
Modern Science has no solution for this problem.
I dont care who you like to use with regard to info on Physics.
I also can read as well as you can.
I also have read most likely the papers from the same "experts" that you have.
The only difference between you and I, is that I don't agree with those authors.

Not agreeing with a conclusion is not equivalent to lacking in knowledge on a subject.
So first i'm not ignorant of the claims of modern Physicists.
Next, I don't disagree with all of them.
Further, as i do possess the ability to present arguments and counter arguments to the claims of those Physicists that I disagree with, then I can't be that stupid.

On the other hand, there is your position, which is summed up as;
"I believe everything this particular professor says, and so can be no problem with it. Any criticism of his theory must therefore be from a quack, and I wont engage such a person in dialogue. If that quack refuses to agree with my champion Physicist, then he must be either ignorant, uneducated or just too stupid to comprehend the glorious truth of my champion hero Physicist. I don't need to discuss any claims that run counter to the truths espoused by my champion Physicist. Any other Physicist that does not side with my champion, must therefore also be a quack, and he must be discredited and publicly humiliated."

TO Python and Bodkin:

Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.
I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
So who is the problem here?

I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually overcoming my criticism of SR.
Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.

This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make. If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.

You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
Science truths are not decided by popular vote or committee.

It doesn't matter if i challenge your hero, or what my beliefs are, or where i went to school.
What matters is who presents the most rational argument.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> TO Python and Bodkin:
>
> Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain
> Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.

And I’ll just point out that you are another in a loooong line of loons who
come here with the stance, “I don’t believe relativity, and it’s up to you
to convince me it’s correct by explaining in such a way that I understand
and believe it.”

This is the fool’s way to learn relativity — by trying to argue about it
and learn something as by-product of the argument.

You might do well to start by learning some physics first. This means
reading textbooks in physics. If you don’t want to do that, then you’re
going to be arguing from a position of ignorance (which has nothing to do
with intelligence).

> I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is
> zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
> So who is the problem here?
>
> I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually
> overcoming my criticism of SR.
> Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.
>
> This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian
> of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make.

Horseshit. No scientist owes it to ANYONE to explain it in a way that
convinces him. If you think this is what science is about, you’ve really
got no idea what science is.

Learn what relativity says FIRST. Not what you THINK it says. What it
REALLY says.

> If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to
> provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
> Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies wrote:
> TO Python and Bodkin:
>
> Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.
> I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
> So who is the problem here?
>
> I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually overcoming my criticism of SR.
> Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.
>
> This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make. If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
> Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.

You didn't provide anything more than "SR is wrong because I say so".
There is not much to answer to that.

You still don't know where you are, and your wish to be able to "reply
to author" is asinine. This is a public forum (again, it's Usenet,
Google Groups is only a gateway to it). "Reply to author" would send
a e-mail (private) to the author: 1st it wouldn't work most of the time
as people are not much providing a valid e-mail address and 2nd it
would be an ABUSE.

You are confusing being able to identify who's wrote what in a message,
which basically need a minimally functioning brain (even if Google
Groups presentation is not that good) with the ability to send an e-mail
which would definitely be an abuse and a spam.

You don't know, also, WHERE you are. This newsgroup has been created
DECADES ago to manage the herd of anti-relativist cranks who where
infesting sci.physics. You are definitely not the first crank to
post here even if you are especially low on arguments compared to your
fellow demented kooks.

If you want to make your mind about this history, just consider this
archive or the most laughable idiocies your fellow cranks have been
posting here in a small number of years:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

....keeping in mind that this only represents 0.000001% of how people of
your kind have made a fool of themselves here :-)

everything isalllies wrote:
> You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
> I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.

Let me guess... You're a Electrical Engineer, right? Or maybe an
"information engineer"?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 9:19:16 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
>>>
>>> So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
>> I didn’t say the above. Please learn to use your usenet reader properly.
>>
>> I’m expressing the opinion of physicists. They are more informed than you.
>> You have not read physics textbooks, as far as I can tell. I’ve read 90 and
>> have 30 more in my library I’ll be getting to.
>>
>> This isn’t about intelligence or how big your brain is. It’s about
>> EDUCATION on the subject. If you are talking about a subject you know
>> nothing about, how much intelligence you have is irrelevant. You’re still
>> operating from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is fixable, if you choose
>> to do it. Stupidity is not fixable. Right now, you’re aiming for both.
>>> I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess,
>>> compared to my half brain.
>>> Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
>>> I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not
>>> just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Its hard to respond as I am unable to "reply to author".
> Modern Science has no solution for this problem.
> I dont care who you like to use with regard to info on Physics.
> I also can read as well as you can.
> I also have read most likely the papers from the same "experts" that you have.
> The only difference between you and I, is that I don't agree with those authors.
>
> Not agreeing with a conclusion is not equivalent to lacking in knowledge on a subject.
> So first i'm not ignorant of the claims of modern Physicists.
> Next, I don't disagree with all of them.
> Further, as i do possess the ability to present arguments and counter
> arguments to the claims of those Physicists that I disagree with, then I
> can't be that stupid.
>
> On the other hand, there is your position, which is summed up as;

Nope, you’ve got it wrong. I’m not taking as gospel what physicists say.
What I do is LEARN what they TEACH in books, which also includes, by the
way, the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that leads them to believe that it’s
correct. I evaluate that evidence as well. It factors into what I will
believe.

You on the other hand are not interested in the evidence, and in fact you
dismiss the evidence as all tainted by “interpretation”. By doing that, you
are not thinking like a physicist.

Some quacks/hacks/nutjobs have come here saying that what scientists do is
question everything. No, that’s horseshit. What scientists do is test
hypotheses by comparison with experimental evidence, and then they can be
CONVINCED by what the evidence tells them, even if it is counter to their
intuition. That is not how you think. You do not, and I thing you probably
cannot, think like a physicist.

> "I believe everything this particular professor says, and so can be no
> problem with it. Any criticism of his theory must therefore be from a
> quack, and I wont engage such a person in dialogue. If that quack
> refuses to agree with my champion Physicist, then he must be either
> ignorant, uneducated or just too stupid to comprehend the glorious truth
> of my champion hero Physicist. I don't need to discuss any claims that
> run counter to the truths espoused by my champion Physicist. Any other
> Physicist that does not side with my champion, must therefore also be a
> quack, and he must be discredited and publicly humiliated."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
> I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
> Science truths are not decided by popular vote or committee.

Relativity is not controversial among physicists.

You’re barking up the wrong tree.

>
> It doesn't matter if i challenge your hero, or what my beliefs are, or
> where i went to school.
> What matters is who presents the most rational argument.

Nope. You’ve confused physics with debate club. What matters in physics is
what the experimental evidence says. Period, end of story.

If you don’t buy into that, then science is not really your bag.

>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 1/4/2022 12:15 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 16:21:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
>> demonstrated in real life.
>
> Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
>
Which is why the uninformed opinions of drunk janitors are ignored or
laughed at. Like the repeatedly parroted absurd claim that GPS "proves"
t'=t gets laughed at, as the exact opposite is true. I mean, how
ridiculous is that???

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
> I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.

But you would not know what is false physics.
You are not able to solve the basic physics nor math problems.
This shows that you are just the troll and want to make noise.

> Relativity is not controversial among physicists.
>
What matters in physics is
> what the experimental evidence says. Period, end of story.
>
> If you don’t buy into that, then science is not really your bag.
> >

> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ok I need to correct you again.

1. How many Physicists are required to disagree with Relativity before its possible that they are right and the majority are wrong? Answer, 1. Even Einstein was once the only one who believed in relativity thus the majority was wrong. And there are more than one Physicist that doesn't agree with relativity.

2. Nope, what matters most in science is having a rational hypothesis.
Other wise you would be willing to research any and every irrational claim of anyone even from a lunatic asylum. The first thing Peer review does is decide if the submitted paper makes rational sense, and contains logical arguments. THEN someone may want o go try things in the lab. Who would be stupid enough to conduct experiments to test obviously irrational claims?

And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the meaning by men with subjective bias.

But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.

As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.

Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.

No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove it either by experiment.

All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors then its nonsense. This is my position.

But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:27:04 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
> > I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
> But you would not know what is false physics.
> You are not able to solve the basic physics nor math problems.
> This shows that you are just the troll and want to make noise.

What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 7:37:22 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:27:04 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
> Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.

There are many trolls and cranks here.
Prove that you are not one of them and then we can converse.

Here is a simple math question. If you can solve it, then you show a hint of worthiness.

I downloaded a 666 MB file. As is well known, download speeds fluctuate. Nonetheless,
the ETA for this download continuously displayed 10 mins.
How long did it take to receive 99.9% of this file?

everything isalllies wrote:
>
>> Relativity is not controversial among physicists.
>>
> What matters in physics is
>> what the experimental evidence says. Period, end of story.
>>
>> If you don’t buy into that, then science is not really your bag.
>>>
>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Ok I need to correct you again.
>
> 1. How many Physicists are required to disagree with Relativity before its possible that they are right and the majority are wrong? Answer, 1. Even Einstein was once the only one who believed in relativity thus the majority was wrong. And there are more than one Physicist that doesn't agree with

This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
don't understand either).

> [snip repeated dementia]

> But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.

Expose one, or shut up.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:04:59 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 7:37:22 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:27:04 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
> > Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
> There are many trolls and cranks here.
> Prove that you are not one of them and then we can converse.
>
> Here is a simple math question. If you can solve it, then you show a hint of worthiness.
>
> I downloaded a 666 MB file. As is well known, download speeds fluctuate. Nonetheless,
> the ETA for this download continuously displayed 10 mins.
> How long did it take to receive 99.9% of this file?

How long is a piece of string?
The satanic download will eventually reach 99.9% because you said you got that much of it, but the last 0.1% is still taking 10 minutes as displayed, and even the last 0.000001% it will still take 10 minutes. No matter how little the remainder is, (one bit of data is the smallest packet of computer data) it's still taking ten minutes. Meaning not that the last bit WILL take 10 minutes, but that the last bit will never be completed. The download speed will drop off to infinity. So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time. You never did get to watch Satan's movie.

So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.

everything isalllies wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:04:59 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 7:37:22 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:27:04 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>> What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
>>> Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
>> There are many trolls and cranks here.
>> Prove that you are not one of them and then we can converse.
>>
>> Here is a simple math question. If you can solve it, then you show a hint of worthiness.
>>
>> I downloaded a 666 MB file. As is well known, download speeds fluctuate. Nonetheless,
>> the ETA for this download continuously displayed 10 mins.
>> How long did it take to receive 99.9% of this file?
>
> How long is a piece of string?
> The satanic download will eventually reach 99.9% because you said you got that much of it, but the last 0.1% is still taking 10 minutes as displayed, and even the last 0.000001% it will still take 10 minutes. No matter how little the remainder is, (one bit of data is the smallest packet of computer data) it's still taking ten minutes. Meaning not that the last bit WILL take 10 minutes, but that the last bit will never be completed. The download speed will drop off to infinity. So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time. You never did get to watch Satan's movie.
>
> So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.

You didn't answer though...

everything isalllies wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:27:04 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
>>> I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
>> But you would not know what is false physics.
>> You are not able to solve the basic physics nor math problems.
>> This shows that you are just the troll and want to make noise.
>
> What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
> Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.

You remind me this guy:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecilePhysics.html

> This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
> theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
> nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
> don't understand either).
>
Python, You are still using ad hominem attacks instead of correcting my errors you say exist.
You repeat that I fail to understand, (insinuating that I m not intelligent enough) when all you really need to do is address my errors as you see them.
I can just as easily say that it's you who fail to comprehend the intricacies of the myriad of errors of Einstein, because your brain is just not sufficiently evolved.

> > But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
> Expose one, or shut up.

Here's one error in SRT.

Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.

Its a claim that all Relativity hangs on, you at no point does Einsteins or any Physicist since ever attempted to describe how this might work as a process in Physics.

Don't bother replying with any subsequent experiment to "prove" this.

Please confine your comments to the subject matter described in Einsteins hypothesis which is what we are criticising. Either the paper is sufficient to support the hypothesis or its not.

> >
> > So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
> You didn't answer though...

The question is hypothetical, and quite impossible for reasons I outlined. but unrealistically its an infinite amount of time.

But if that's not the answer you like, please give me your solution, now that Ive provided my answer.

And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall".
> You remind me this guy:
>
> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecilePhysics.html

And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall". But this has zero to do with Physics of Einstein, correct?

everything isalllies wrote:
>
>> This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
>> theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
>> nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
>> don't understand either).
>>
> Python, You are still using ad hominem attacks instead of correcting my errors you say exist.
> You repeat that I fail to understand, (insinuating that I m not intelligent enough) when all you really need to do is address my errors as you see them.
> I can just as easily say that it's you who fail to comprehend the intricacies of the myriad of errors of Einstein, because your brain is just not sufficiently evolved.
>
>>> But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
>> Expose one, or shut up.
>
> Here's one error in SRT.
>
> Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
> Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.

1st.

Einstein wrote something quite more precise than your "Laws of the
Physics that hold good" (which is meaningless as long as you don't
specify what are these "laws") he wrote that a "co-ordinate system" (a
frame of reference is a system "in which the Newtonian equations hold"

2nd.

You have nothing but your disagreement against:

"Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the
relative speed of the one measuring"

Moreover it's not even a postulate in Einstein article (only
round trip time is assumed - in accordance with experiments)
it is a consequence of the synchronization convention. But
this is another story which is far above your head.

> [snip nonsense]
Errors: YOU: 1 / EINSTEIN: 0

Again, you're not even surprising as a crank, we've seen dozens of
your kind, please read:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

you crazy cranks are boring.

everything isalllies wrote:
> And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall".
>> You remind me this guy:
>>
>> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecilePhysics.html
>
> And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall". But this has zero to do with Physics of Einstein, correct?

Oh, come on "everything isalllies", you are uneducated in science,
especially math and physics, you've discovered Special Relativity
through popular science. As you tried to make your mind, you crashed
but you are unwilling to learn and you start to go wild.

And now, in 2022, you are posting here, a place you've never heard
about, the same crap 100 cranks of your kind posted before. People
are not interested.

You are just too dumb and an idiot to grasp any scientific concept,
you've been trapped into trying to understand Relativity. Find another
hobby, admit you're a imbecile.

Python, Arrogant Arseholes like you are boring, so I write this for the benefit of others:

> 1st.
>
> Einstein wrote something quite more precise than your "Laws of the
> Physics that hold good" (which is meaningless as long as you don't
> specify what are these "laws") he wrote that a "co-ordinate system" (a
> frame of reference is a system "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
<
Ok so he wrote that "the laws of Kinematics of moving bodies in inertial frames hold good... so how does that change my statement? Its a moot point. Clearly you are grasping at straws to try to dance around the problems I outline. So as he admitted that those laws of physics in inertial frames hold good, how is it that he later concluded that the very same laws (which provide terms of c+v and c-v ) were now wrong? He even used c+v and c-v in his maths derivations.
>
> 2nd.
>
> You have nothing but your disagreement against:
> "Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the
> relative speed of the one measuring"
> Moreover it's not even a postulate in Einstein article (only
> round trip time is assumed - in accordance with experiments)
> it is a consequence of the synchronization convention. But
> this is another story which is far above your head.
>
Don't make out that I ONLY have a disagreement about the measurement of light speed as if this is no big deal.
Its never been explained how Einsteins version can accommodate the measuring of a finitely moving object from another finitely moving object under different conditions but always magically arriving at the very same result.
This is as big a deal as is possible, a situation where a paper claiming to be sufficient to overthrow Newton and Galileo but cant even explain its how its own primary postulate could be considered as rational.

Einsteins only statement is "that's how it is, deal with it." To which others reply, "That's NOT how it is at all, you are irrational, you need to be in a mental institution."

But Python, you are way to moronic to figure this material out, your tiny intellect cant cope with even simple logic. All you can do is learn by rote, like a parrot.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 8:27:16 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:04:59 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> How long is a piece of string?
> The satanic download will eventually reach 99.9%

Yes, as implied in the question.

> ... but the last 0.1% is still taking 10 minutes as displayed,

Yes.

> No matter how little the remainder is, (one bit of data is the smallest packet of computer data)

Yes [and that would entail another question (one that I amused myself with)] but irrelevant.
I want the time it took to receive 99.9% of the file.

> ... So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time.

Since that's wrong, you have shown me that you cannot solve a "simple" math question.
Hence, you have no business of discussing physics here.
> So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.

It's a math question, requires a little calculation to find the answer, the value I seek/asked.

> > ... So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time.
>
> Since that's wrong, you have shown me that you cannot solve a "simple" math question.
> Hence, you have no business of discussing physics here.
> > So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
> It's a math question, requires a little calculation to find the answer, the value I seek/asked.

Please provide your answer, and how you derived it. Or your message is worthless.