Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596383 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 208 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 15:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:02 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-29 22:35 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 19:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-29 15:13 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 22:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 10:52 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 05:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 11:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 21:53 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 05:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 20:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-02 13:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 08:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-01 09:55 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 16:05 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 22:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 11:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 17:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:54 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:37 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan repeats the same imbecilities. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:52 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz converses with fellow cretin Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-07 21:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-08 11:11 -0800
Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:45 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:58 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 10:03 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-08 10:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 11:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 22:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 10:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:03 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 16:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:11 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 19:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 05:51 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:12 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 11:22 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:30 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 12:01 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 18:17 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 13:08 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 20:17 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-09 08:11 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 10:06 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:10 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 20:01 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:39 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 15:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:04 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 11:15 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 21:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:13 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 15:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:26 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz posts the same imbecilities once again "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Dono has no answers except lies and deceptive comments Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:11 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off his rocker (even further) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:49 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-29 12:19 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-29 14:35 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:43 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 07:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-12-01 18:42 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 11:47 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:14 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-30 14:26 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 19:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 13:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 22:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 04:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 03:12 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Soo Yong Jie <sooyongjie@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 05:15 -0800
Odious Kapo Richard Hertz gets to face reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 17:42 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:49 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 04:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:55 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 21:50 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:35 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 15:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 22:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:36 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 08:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 10:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 11:38 -0800
Imbecile Richard Hertz keeps frothing at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 14:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 03:00 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:54 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 12:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 05:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 20:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 12:23 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan learns new imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 12:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 13:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 16:01 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 03:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 09:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 11:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:09 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz reduced to mouth frothing "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 17:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-15 19:58 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:24 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:47 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:29 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-16 11:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 04:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 05:55 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 08:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-17 11:21 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 02:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 17:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:48 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz gets arsed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 10:06 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3db590fe-a951-407d-8c2c-0c2a652a953fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596977 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:18:17 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Prokary, Please provide the links > > > > Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > > > > angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > > > for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > > Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. Why would gravity not influence EM like like it curves the atom motion? Why not? The EM can be stored in an atom sharing the atom's curved motion. EM motion curves in two ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 18:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cff9282d-8969-4b11-b694-aba9bb70c90bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596977 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: <snip Dono's shit> > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that he read from relativistic sources. He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. Paul will insist that the huge recollection of data accumulated in 20 years by radioastronomers around the world (zillions of bytes) proved Einstein's right beyond any doubt. And that because a computer program averaged different measures in different places and different times, so the value of deflection of starlight grazing the surface of the Sun is 1.7513685462 arcseconds. And THAT probe that the PPN Gamma Factor Y = 1.00000000052. And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. It goes like this: θ(1915) = (1 + Y) x θ(1911) = 1.7513685462 arcseconds Don't contradict Paul, or he will have a seizure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a1d1c85-60f6-41d6-97dc-a81d7a3682b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596982 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > <snip Dono's shit> > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > he read from relativistic sources. > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. > > Paul will insist that the huge recollection of data accumulated in 20 years by radioastronomers around the world (zillions of bytes) proved > Einstein's right beyond any doubt. And that because a computer program averaged different measures in different places and different > times, so the value of deflection of starlight grazing the surface of the Sun is 1.7513685462 arcseconds. > > And THAT probe that the PPN Gamma Factor Y = 1.00000000052. > > And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. > > It goes like this: θ(1915) = (1 + Y) x θ(1911) = 1.7513685462 arcseconds > > Don't contradict Paul, or he will have a seizure. The sun is THE MOST RADIO INTENSE OBJECT we experience. We have but to gaze towards our poles on winter nights to prove to ourselves its incredible radio-electric effect. I've even seen the auroras here in Seattle once or twice. Anyone claiming that the passing of a radio transmission near the sun is not affected in dozens of ways other than just by gravity is obviously a foolish academic whose has probably never even soldered a resistor to a pcb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2278a71c-5fa9-472f-8266-f30eaddd7190n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596983 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:35:09 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > Anyone claiming that the passing of a radio transmission near the sun is not affected in dozens of ways other than just by gravity is obviously a foolish academic whose has probably never even soldered a resistor to a pcb. Stick to soldering, Pattycakes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ff2de73-d6a1-495d-9bf3-a0f7d32b43f7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596982 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > <snip Dono's shit> > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > he read from relativistic sources. > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. > > Paul will insist that the huge recollection of data accumulated in 20 years by radioastronomers around the world (zillions of bytes) proved > Einstein's right beyond any doubt. And that because a computer program averaged different measures in different places and different > times, so the value of deflection of starlight grazing the surface of the Sun is 1.7513685462 arcseconds. > > And THAT probe that the PPN Gamma Factor Y = 1.00000000052. > > And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. > > It goes like this: θ(1915) = (1 + Y) x θ(1911) = 1.7513685462 arcseconds > > Don't contradict Paul, or he will have a seizure. I repeat, there is no person, organization or group, other than Eddington (1919) and Bruns,(2017) who claims to have unambiguously and dispositively demonstrated the bending of starlight by the sun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Pat Dolan repeats the same imbecilities. |
| Message-ID | <be15e45e-1589-44f6-a969-85971e3a2e56n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596984 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:37:56 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > I repeat, there is no person, organization or group, other than Eddington (1919) and Bruns,(2017) who claims to have unambiguously and dispositively demonstrated the bending of starlight by the sun. Pattycakes, Repeating the same imbecilities (like you buddy crank Dick Hertz) doesn't make them true. Regardless of how many time you repeat them. It only makes you more imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Dick Hertz converses with fellow cretin Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <72d96f94-0813-4492-bf81-c3e60ba42e0fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596982 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. > No, it isn't, your cretinism is showing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 20:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3050ce1c-bcc8-4762-8949-f56e734657a5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596982 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > <snip Dono's shit> > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > he read from relativistic sources. > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. Thank you for your scholarship here, Richard. I have often wondered about the 1.75 value's calculations and where they could be viewed. > > Paul will insist that the huge recollection of data accumulated in 20 years by radioastronomers around the world (zillions of bytes) proved > Einstein's right beyond any doubt. And that because a computer program averaged different measures in different places and different > times, so the value of deflection of starlight grazing the surface of the Sun is 1.7513685462 arcseconds. > > And THAT probe that the PPN Gamma Factor Y = 1.00000000052. > > And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. > > It goes like this: θ(1915) = (1 + Y) x θ(1911) = 1.7513685462 arcseconds > > Don't contradict Paul, or he will have a seizure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 20:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71f3db4a-5337-47ae-99b7-3c16b5727505n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596991 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:02:53 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > > > <snip Dono's shit> > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > > he read from relativistic sources. > > > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. > Thank you for your scholarship here, Richard. I have often wondered about the 1.75 value's calculations and where they could be viewed. And I am still waiting for somebody, anybody to employ the mathematical machinery of GR, with its curved space and its curved time, to calculate the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick. > > > > Paul will insist that the huge recollection of data accumulated in 20 years by radioastronomers around the world (zillions of bytes) proved > > Einstein's right beyond any doubt. And that because a computer program averaged different measures in different places and different > > times, so the value of deflection of starlight grazing the surface of the Sun is 1.7513685462 arcseconds. > > > > And THAT probe that the PPN Gamma Factor Y = 1.00000000052. > > > > And you know that the PPN Gamma Factor is the 50% of the total deflection: Half newtonian and half einstenian. > > > > It goes like this: θ(1915) = (1 + Y) x θ(1911) = 1.7513685462 arcseconds > > > > Don't contradict Paul, or he will have a seizure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 21:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63917163.EF1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596993 |
patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:02:53 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > <snip Dono's shit> > > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > > > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > > > he read from relativistic sources. > > > > > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > > > > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > > > > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > > > > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > > > > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > > > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > > > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. > > Thank you for your scholarship here, Richard. I have often wondered about the 1.75 value's calculations and where they could be viewed. > > And I am still waiting for somebody, anybody to employ the mathematical machinery of GR, with its curved space and its curved time, to calculate the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick. Did you say..."machinery"? Welcome to the Machine. The normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick has nothing to go with GR...gravity is too weak of a force. The force, the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick is govern by the machinery that is behind that which moves planets. What is the force behind the warm smile of a woman...a machine. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <639236C5.523@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596995 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > patdolan wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:02:53 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip Dono's shit> > > > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > > > > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > > > > Pat, you're going to annoy Paul, because of his .....WAIT A MINUTE! He only repeated (as a parrot) what was taught to him or shit that > > > > he read from relativistic sources. > > > > > > > > He's mad with the PPN Gamma shit, accusing me of not getting it. He forgot older discussions between us. He's aging badly. > > > > > > > > Probably he will attack with the Shapiro shit. He's low on ammunition. > > > > > > > > QUOTE: "The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. > > > > > > > > Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present". > > > > > > > > Paul will insist that the Shapiro's work confirmed light deflection by the Sun AS PREDICTED by Einstein's simple announcement, within > > > > the Mercury's paper. No calculations, no proofs, just the cretin telling in few words that HE HAD DOUBLED the value of the 1911 deflection, > > > > which was a cheap plagiarism of 1801 paper from von Soldner. A newtonian thing. > > > Thank you for your scholarship here, Richard. I have often wondered about the 1.75 value's calculations and where they could be viewed. > > > > And I am still waiting for somebody, anybody to employ the mathematical machinery of GR, with its curved space and its curved time, to calculate the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick. > > Did you say..."machinery"? Welcome to the Machine. > > The normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick has nothing > to go with GR...gravity is too weak of a force. The force, > the normal force produced on a tabletop by a one kilo brick is govern > by the machinery that is behind that which moves planets. > > What is the force behind the warm smile of a woman...a machine. Allow me to expand on that... That warm smile on her face... it's just a mask of flesh.. behind the mask is a machine. The machine mocks you. Not her, the machine mocks you. She is not a human being... it is a stubbornly persistent illusion. She is a Machine. Behind the face of a clock of a human of a universe.. is a machine. The Universe and all it's stars and planets and time and space is not a universe.. IT IS A ...MACHINE!!!! Thst warm smile is a machine. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. |
| Message-ID | <ffac6353-c4a4-48b3-a9c3-588494d922aen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596977 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:18:17 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Prokary, Please provide the links > > > > Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > > > > angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > > > for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > > Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. I found it but you need to get out of your drunken stupor and do the same type of search I did. >Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. You claim this because you are the same level of imbecility as Dick Hertz and you are unable to read let alone understand the paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. |
| Message-ID | <0f301cb4-a97e-42eb-99f5-ce0181f35366n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596985 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:45:03 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:18:17 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > Prokary, Please provide the links > > > > > Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > > > > > angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > > > > for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > > > Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > > Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. > I found it but you need to get out of your drunken stupor and do the same type of search I did. > >Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. > You claim this because you are the same level of imbecility as Dick Hertz and you are unable to read let alone understand the paper. Dono, you fool. The entire paper drips with GR confirmation bias. The authors introduce GR bending constants into a model to test for the validity of GR. Then thy try to work it out for a zillion different parallax pairs. Ridiculous. So ridiculous that we never hear about the PPN gamma again despite GAIA, James Webb, and Hubble's vast accuracy improvements. I guarandamntee those parallax tests were run on the other superior platforms. But the results were trash. Just like all subsequent essay's on Eddington's results...until the amateur Bruns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 20:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. |
| Message-ID | <134f42ef-233b-4540-9f3d-d5cb2a58b1abn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596990 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >The entire paper drips with GR confirmation bias. You are dripping because of frothing at the mouth, Pattycakes. Lay off the booze.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 19:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <759aaef4-1eca-426e-85e2-b53130acce70n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596977 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:18:17 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Prokary, Please provide the links > > > > Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > > > > angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > > > for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > > Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. Nonsense. You simply don't know about experimental results since then. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 10:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tms99e$r930$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596977 |
Den 08.12.2022 02:18, skrev patdolan: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >> >>> Prokary, Please provide the links >>>> Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at >>>> angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. >>> for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. >> Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. The measurements of the deflections of light from stars close to the Sun at an eclipse can never be very precise. But there are better ways to measure it: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf γ = 0.997 ± 0.003 https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2)⋅1e-5 https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf γ = 0.99983 ± 0.00045 https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003 https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf γ − 1 = (−4.8 ± 5.7)⋅1e-5 The GR prediction is solidly confirmed and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07c7c9bf-733c-4271-978d-5e021e75b3f6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596997 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:03:45 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.12.2022 02:18, skrev patdolan: > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > >> > >>> Prokary, Please provide the links > >>>> Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > >>>> angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > >>> for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > >> Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > >> Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > The measurements of the deflections of light > from stars close to the Sun at an eclipse > can never be very precise. > > But there are better ways to measure it: > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > γ = 0.997 ± 0.003 > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2)⋅1e-5 > > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf > γ = 0.99983 ± 0.00045 > > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf > γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003 > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf > γ − 1 = (−4.8 ± 5.7)⋅1e-5 > > > The GR prediction is solidly confirmed > and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong. > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ This is truly a wonderful post, Paul. I am considering framing it. First, your post indicates that credentialed relativists such as yourself have finally given up on reproducing the now discredited Eddington results. William Wallace Campbell and my own home state of WA now take our place in scientific history as being honored for the first person and location to falsify GR. Poor old Bruns...that chump didn't get the memo in time. Second, we are to believe that the new proof of GR supposedly now lies in this new GR gamma ( Of all the Greeks, I wonder why thy chose gamma for this purpose?) I believe that Richard has already made the point that the GR gamma annihilates the purpose for GR in the first place--the GR gamma destroys the second postulate. GR was the patch that Einstein wrote for SR so that it had a locally flat neighborhood in which to operate in a universe permeated by curved spacetime. Third, the GR gamma is only concerned with increased lengths of geodesics and nowhere accounts for gravitational time dilation--correct me if I am wrong. The spacetime curvature of the solar system is basically Euclidean. The GR effects we measure are due almost entirely to curved time and not curved space. Don't believe me? Then take it from the illustrious PBS with all its credentialed relativity consultants: https://youtu.be/AwhKZ3fd9JA?t=391
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11bcc73a-3c3a-4ec6-96cb-4f12b152470bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597008 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 12:40:56 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote: [totally delusional comments]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09e85e9f-489c-46ff-bbb7-8383734480fcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597008 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 10:40:56 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:03:45 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 08.12.2022 02:18, skrev patdolan: > > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 11:56:59 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > >> > > >>> Prokary, Please provide the links > > >>>> Gaia and Hipparcos readily detect stellar GR deflections at > > >>>> angles of 90 degrees from the Sun. > > >>> for the Gaia and Hipparcos experimental data. > > >> Here is Hipparcos, Pattycakes: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > >> Lay off the bottle, it turned your brains to shit. > > > > > > Thank you Dono for your research. I notice that you found no similar information for GAIA, Hubble or James Webb. Please be advised that you have found NO experimental data concerning the bending starlight with this Hipparcos PPN paper. The paper first assumes the truth of General Relativity then proceeds to demonstrate that gravity has bent electromagnetic radiation. > > > > > > Let me repeat: Since GR's inception there have been exactly two, AND ONLY TWO human beings who have ever claimed to have experimentally confirmed the bending of electromagnetic radiation by gravity. This first was Eddington. His work was subsequently dismissed as too shoddy to be considered scientific. The second is the amateur Bruns in our own time. > > The measurements of the deflections of light > > from stars close to the Sun at an eclipse > > can never be very precise. > > > > But there are better ways to measure it: > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > γ = 0.997 ± 0.003 > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > > γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2)⋅1e-5 > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf > > γ = 0.99983 ± 0.00045 > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf > > γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003 > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf > > γ − 1 = (−4.8 ± 5.7)⋅1e-5 > > > > > > The GR prediction is solidly confirmed > > and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong. > > > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > This is truly a wonderful post, Paul. I am considering framing it. > > First, your post indicates that credentialed relativists such as yourself have finally given up on reproducing the now discredited Eddington results. William Wallace Campbell and my own home state of WA now take our place in scientific history as being honored for the first person and location to falsify GR. Poor old Bruns...that chump didn't get the memo in time. > > Second, we are to believe that the new proof of GR supposedly now lies in this new GR gamma ( Of all the Greeks, I wonder why thy chose gamma for this purpose?) I believe that Richard has already made the point that the GR gamma annihilates the purpose for GR in the first place--the GR gamma destroys the second postulate. GR was the patch that Einstein wrote for SR so that it had a locally flat neighborhood in which to operate in a universe permeated by curved spacetime. > > Third, the GR gamma is only concerned with increased lengths of geodesics and nowhere accounts for gravitational time dilation--correct me if I am wrong. The spacetime curvature of the solar system is basically Euclidean. The GR effects we measure are due almost entirely to curved time and not curved space. Don't believe me? Then take it from the illustrious PBS with all its credentialed relativity consultants: https://youtu.be/AwhKZ3fd9JA?t=391 "A little learning is a dangerous thing" - Alexander Pope
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tmtjcp$ugi7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597008 |
Den 08.12.2022 19:40, skrev patdolan: > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:03:45 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> The measurements of the deflections of light >> from stars close to the Sun at an eclipse >> can never be very precise. >> >> But there are better ways to measure it: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> γ = 0.997 ± 0.003 >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >> γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2)⋅1e-5 >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf >> γ = 0.99983 ± 0.00045 >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf >> γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003 >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf >> γ − 1 = (−4.8 ± 5.7)⋅1e-5 >> >> >> The GR prediction is solidly confirmed >> and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong. >> > This is truly a wonderful post, Paul. I am considering framing it. > > First, your post indicates that credentialed relativists such as yourself have finally given up on reproducing the now discredited Eddington results. As I said: The measurements of the deflections of light from stars close to the Sun at an eclipse can never be very precise. Eddington measured the deflection to be θ = (1.82 ± 0.16)", which means that 1.66" < θ < 1.98". So GR's prediction 1.75" is in accordance with the measurement, while Newton's prediction 0.875" is not. So at that time, Eddington's measurement was a great success. But today Eddington's measurement is mostly of historical interest, because many measurements with vastly better precision are made. > > <Snip Pat Dolan's demonstration of his ignorance of what the PPM parameter γ is> When you don't know what γ is, why do you then write so much nonsense about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism In Parametrized post-Newtonian formalism (PPN) γ is the parameter that define the curvature of space. So according to Newton, γ = 0, according GR γ = 1. In PPN, the equation for deflection of light can be written: θ = ((1+γ)GM/c²b)⋅(1+cosφ) (1) where b is the impact parameter, (distance of closest approach of the ray's path to the centre of Sun) and φ is the angle between the Sun and the star. For a ray grazing the sun, b = the radius of the Sun R = 6.957e8 m, and φ is the angular radius of the sun, φ = 0.2665⁰ the equation becomes θ = ((1+γ)GM/c²R)⋅(1+cosφ) (2) with γ = 0, we get: θ = (GM/c²R)⋅(1+cosφ) ≈ 0.875" which is the Newtonian prediction. with γ = 1, we get: θ = 2⋅(GM/c²R)⋅(1+cosφ) ≈ 1.750" which is the GR prediction. So when the experiments in my post quoted above all determine the PPN parameter γ to be very close to 1, it means that the measured deflections are very close to the prediction of GR. Bottom line: GR's prediction for gravitational deflection of EM-radiation is so thoroughly confirmed that you have to be very ignorant, and/or a complete moron not to accept it. It is stupid to keep refuting what is settled by experimental evidence. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web