Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #607821 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-04-19 04:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-05-10 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 199 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 04:05 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-18 22:05 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 13:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-19 10:07 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:14 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-19 19:37 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-19 17:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-20 10:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 01:56 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-19 22:23 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:08 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-20 08:46 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-04-19 17:25 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-29 09:46 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 19:04 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-01 00:04 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:15 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-01 14:29 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:40 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-01 14:44 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-01 00:30 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 13:21 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 06:23 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:02 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 09:54 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-20 10:50 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 11:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 11:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 14:49 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 15:13 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-20 10:56 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 05:57 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 06:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 17:33 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 21:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 05:10 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 06:12 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-21 12:29 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 06:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 07:08 -0700
Mask falls off the face of hardened crank Amrit Gehan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 02:07 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 00:23 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-21 22:52 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 09:48 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-22 09:17 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 08:15 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-22 12:08 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 12:01 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 11:00 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 17:55 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 18:27 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 19:31 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 22:23 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 23:16 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-23 07:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-23 08:40 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-23 14:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 17:24 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-22 15:33 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-24 00:17 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 01:58 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 00:53 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 18:18 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 17:56 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-26 11:11 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-26 08:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-26 13:20 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 19:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-26 21:21 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:29 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-27 23:08 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 13:47 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 07:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 09:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 22:09 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 00:37 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 07:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:01 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-27 10:33 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:47 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:01 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-04 20:50 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-04 16:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-06 00:06 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-05 21:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-07 00:51 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 21:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 02:44 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-07 23:48 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 23:22 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-08 20:08 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:37 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-08 22:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:45 +0000
Uncle Jane Discusses Science (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-10 00:24 -0500
Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-10 02:11 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:57 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 23:35 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-11 20:16 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-15 00:34 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-14 22:38 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 02:01 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-16 00:57 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 06:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-16 12:57 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-17 22:57 +0000
Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-17 19:20 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:05 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:22 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-04 21:24 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 22:36 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 23:26 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 23:41 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-06 00:07 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 18:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 23:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-05 21:56 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 20:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 20:03 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 19:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-07 00:59 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 21:57 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 02:51 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-08 00:02 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-07 20:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-27 20:22 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-27 23:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 07:28 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 07:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:03 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-28 21:18 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 17:26 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-28 22:31 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 18:39 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 20:38 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 18:37 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-04-25 17:00 +0300
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 11:56 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 12:01 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 01:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-24 08:36 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-24 13:10 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 10:28 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 02:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 11:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 02:38 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 13:39 +0200
Railway puzzle (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 11:49 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 03:11 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 13:39 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 05:19 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 23:30 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-25 22:12 -0400
Re: Railway puzzle whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 22:23 -0500
Re: Railway puzzle Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 18:50 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-27 09:15 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:53 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-28 10:43 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 15:53 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-07 13:34 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-29 10:55 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-29 21:27 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-29 19:01 -0400
Re: Railway puzzle Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-04-30 11:11 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-27 15:20 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 14:18 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-29 14:38 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-26 23:15 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Tommy Africani <ffci@tiacyctm.mo> - 2023-04-26 13:39 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-04-24 12:44 +0300
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 17:44 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-24 13:20 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 12:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 00:31 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 17:49 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 23:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 09:42 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 03:30 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 07:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-24 00:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-24 08:37 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 01:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 17:41 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-06 18:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-06 18:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:33 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 14:17 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 04:05 +0000 |
| Subject | The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. |
| Message-ID | <17573a5403045ac6$72$4813$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it. I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-18 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c51b82bf-ac41-452c-b013-d8d2d50afed8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607821 |
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. Even E. T. Whittaker fell into the same mental trap, so at least you are in a good company. > There was much argument > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. > > That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a > moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, > (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ > Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > explain why when people here have studied it. > I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the > same error. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-21 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4614170f-4e1e-4500-b17a-ad06327e823en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607825 |
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:05:12 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > > Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. > Even E. T. Whittaker fell into the same mental trap, so at least you are > in a good company. > > There was much argument > > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. > > > > That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > > experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a > > moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, > > (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ > > Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > > explain why when people here have studied it. > > I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > > experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > > SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > > disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > > Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the > > same error. > Gobbledygook. > > -- > Jan I see what you are saying, having read the article. He finds the velocity of the source (moving mirror) does not affect the speed of light. That would support the second postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1q9fg78.1wxpjyd2oco86N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #607821 |
Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > Einstein. Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might stray in here: By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities were competing over getting him a full professorate. Einstein was of course invited (by Lorentz) to attend the first Solvay conference, also in 1911. All the 'big names' in physics were there. Do have a look at the photograph and the who is who. By 1913 there wasn't a professional physicist who didn't know that Einstein was one of the greats. > The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. That very same Lorentz, in person, did what he could to get Einstein as his successor in Leyden in 1912. Alas, Prague had gotten him first, and Zurich next, and finally Berlin won. Leyden did eventually succeed in getting Einstein a professorate on a part-time basis, for a few weeks at a time. Lorentz and Einstein became great friends, based on mutual respect, after their first meeting in person in 1911 at the Solvay conference. You really should try to get your history right, (instead of inventing your own) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17576225567b8b66$27$3048414$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #607840 |
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: > >> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >> Einstein. > > Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might > stray in here: > > By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. > Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, > and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities > were competing over getting him a full professorate. He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect. You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists) > Jan -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 19:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1q9g6w0.4nyagi1e88f2gN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #607868 |
Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: > > > >> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > >> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > >> Einstein. > > > > Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might > > stray in here: > > > > By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. > > Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, > > and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities > > were competing over getting him a full professorate. > > He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect. For the innocent kiddies: this is completely wrong too. Einstein got his doctorate in 1905 for an original method of determining Avogadro's number from the viscosity of sugar solutions. (another of the 'annus mirabilis' papers, the 'rheology' one) > You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole > thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz > had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists) ROTFL, sure, sure, poisonned. The innocent kiddies will see through this for themselves, I guess, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kab9j3Ff6seU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607868 |
On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: >> >>> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >>> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >>> Einstein. >> >> Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might >> stray in here: >> >> By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. >> Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, >> and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities >> were competing over getting him a full professorate. > > He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect. This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should expect similar treatment. Einstein earned his bachelor's degree in 1900. In 1905 He was awarded his doctoral degree at the University of Zurich. Neither of these had anything to do with the photoelectric effect. The Nobel prize he received did not come with the strength one would expect given all the hoopla later associated with the man. "During the selection process in 1921, the Nobel Committee for Physics decided that none of the year's nominations met the criteria as outlined in the will of Alfred Nobel." So: "According to the Nobel Foundation's statutes, the Nobel Prize can in such a case be reserved until the following year, and this statute was then applied. Albert Einstein therefore received his Nobel Prize for 1921 one year later, in 1922." <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/> > You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole > thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz > had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists) The particular camp you belong to probably has much to do with how you see these, and several other, issues related to Einstein. There's plenty enough narcissism relevant to physics (on all sides) let alone relativity to go around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 10:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1q9hcnx.z311frrnbhqkN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #607904 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote: > >> > >>> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > >>> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > >>> Einstein. > >> > >> Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might > >> stray in here: > >> > >> By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. > >> Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, > >> and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities > >> were competing over getting him a full professorate. > > > > He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect. > > This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should > expect similar treatment. Indeed. Being incompetent in mathematics, or not understanding Maxwell's equations can happen. Some people just don't have the brains for those kinds of things. But there can be no such excuse for falsifying the facts of well-documented history. Our 'Jane' entity is not just dumb, it is mean, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 01:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70b8e8d3-50a0-4f82-a314-f8a39cefa2b4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607947 |
On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 10:30:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > >> Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > > >>> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > > >>> Einstein. > > >> > > >> Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might > > >> stray in here: > > >> > > >> By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream. > > >> Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911, > > >> and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities > > >> were competing over getting him a full professorate. > > > > > > He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect. > > > > This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should > > expect similar treatment. > Indeed. Being incompetent in mathematics, Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announced its oldest, very important part false - as it didn't want to fit your madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 22:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kaa4peF9p5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607821 |
On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > explain why when people here have studied it. Why not just explain it anyway? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175761cd8d578595$26$3048414$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #607850 |
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: >> >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >> explain why when people here have studied it. > > > Why not just explain it anyway? There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. Can you spot the blatant error? > > Sylvia. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-20 08:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kab99rFfblqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607867 |
On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: >>> >>> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >>> explain why when people here have studied it. >> >> >> Why not just explain it anyway? > > There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. > I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. > The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. > Can you spot the blatant error? > No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-19 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64408690.7B87@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #607903 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: > >>> > >>> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > >>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > >>> explain why when people here have studied it. > >> > >> > >> Why not just explain it anyway? > > > > There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. > > I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. > > The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. > > Can you spot the blatant error? > > > No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. > > Sylvia. Cat fight! we're gonna see panites!!!! Jane wears pink panties...what color are Sylvia's panties??? -- 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 | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-29 09:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kb346uF6inuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #607916 |
On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >>>>> explain why when people here have studied it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>> >>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. >>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. >>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>> >> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >> >> Sylvia. > > Cat fight! > Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-28 19:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb357uF7cr3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #608925 |
On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >>>>>> explain why when people here have studied it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>> >>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>> publication. >>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>> rabble. >>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>> >>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Cat fight! >> > Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-01 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175adc29e3ed9fdb$3$565070$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608927 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>>> >>>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>> publication. >>>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>> rabble. >>>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>>> >>>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Cat fight! >>> >> Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. > > Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot? I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-30 23:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb8sngF4vcsU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609218 |
On 4/30/2023 7:04 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>> publication. >>>>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>> rabble. >>>>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>>>> >>>>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Cat fight! >>>> >>> Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. >> >> Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot? > > I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper > and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error. Is that your claim as to how science works? Stupid me, I was led to believe that a person who found fault with an article that was published in a peer reviewed journal was supposed to submit and publish a dissenting article showing the error(s) missed by the referee(s) in the first instance. The problem with the approach you're taking is that Usenet, in recent times, has not had individuals with the technical proficiency to undertake such reviews and at the same time you've not demonstrated that caliber of proficiency. If I am mistaken in my assessment then by all means please show me. BTW, unsubstantiated claims never do the trick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-01 14:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kb8thqF59q7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609218 |
On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>> publication. >>>>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>> rabble. >>>>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>>>> >>>>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Cat fight! >>>> >>> Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. >> >> Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot? > > I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper > and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error. > > The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are therefore not worth bothering with. They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits. As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-30 23:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb8u5qF5fsbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609257 |
On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>> publication. >>>>>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>> rabble. >>>>>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>>>>> >>>>>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Cat fight! >>>>> >>>> Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. >>> >>> Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot? >> >> I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper >> and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error. >> >> > > The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect, > there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they > claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just > disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or > that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are > therefore not worth bothering with. > > They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the > error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits. > > As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd. As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a criticism of your attempt(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-01 14:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kb8uclF5et7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609262 |
On 01-May-23 2:40 pm, whodat wrote: > On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> Why not just explain it anyway? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>>> publication. >>>>>>>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>>> rabble. >>>>>>>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I don't believe there is a blatant error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cat fight! >>>>>> >>>>> Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up. >>>> >>>> Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot? >>> >>> I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper >>> and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error. >>> >>> >> >> The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they >> suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find >> it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, >> you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really >> read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, >> and are therefore not worth bothering with. >> >> They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is >> the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits. >> >> As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd. > > As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be > misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic > in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a > criticism of your attempt(s). > You're right - it's a triumph of hope over experience. Still, it might work, one day. Perhaps. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web