Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576928 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 426 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 19:43 +0000
Crank Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:38 -0800
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-12 20:48 +0100
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 15:21 -0800
Re: Crank Dontknow perverses Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-13 00:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 20:26 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 08:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 02:42 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 12:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-14 08:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-14 18:48 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 03:23 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:28 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-14 10:16 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-15 10:49 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 13:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 05:09 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-16 07:45 +0100
Cretin Thomas Heger perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:54 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 13:57 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-18 07:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:27 +0000
Crank Thomas Heger admits he's a fool "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 10:53 -0800
Re: Crank Do'no admits he's a fool Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-19 10:44 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-16 13:12 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-17 07:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-02-19 17:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-21 07:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 13:34 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-22 08:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 16:23 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-23 09:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 14:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 07:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 13:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 22:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 23:18 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-24 17:34 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:44 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-25 07:53 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-25 03:12 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 00:34 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-25 13:05 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 08:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-26 11:44 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 16:43 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 08:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 05:18 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 16:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 09:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-01 08:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 12:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-01 10:44 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-01 08:22 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-02 11:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 11:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 08:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-03 09:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 02:36 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 15:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 10:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-06 14:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-07 14:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:21 +0100
Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 09:29 -0800
Re: Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger exposed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 19:39 -0800
Re: Nazi piece of shit Dontkno exposed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 12:31 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 12:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:43 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 05:57 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 20:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 15:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 11:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-03 03:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:29 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 12:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-04 10:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-03 06:10 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 07:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-04 07:53 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-03 15:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 06:41 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 14:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 07:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 14:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 09:49 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:02 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 09:01 +0100
Nazi piece of shit Thomas Heger at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 07:15 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 19:11 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 02:29 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 09:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 03:46 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Nazi Thomas Heger swallows some shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 09:01 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 17:32 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 14:45 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:18 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-28 05:56 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 17:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 22:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-01 08:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 12:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-01 12:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-01 10:49 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 13:12 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:49 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-03 11:47 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-01 07:38 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-02 08:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-02 03:36 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 13:21 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 12:31 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 12:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-06 14:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 05:47 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-28 08:23 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 18:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:13 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-26 13:59 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-27 23:03 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:43 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 12:21 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 14:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-22 09:40 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 10:28 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-23 08:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-23 06:05 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 07:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 13:54 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-24 07:07 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-24 22:33 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 22:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-24 16:23 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-25 07:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 14:02 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 06:11 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-25 06:15 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 08:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 12:14 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 06:03 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-26 21:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-26 16:29 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-27 09:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-02-27 05:25 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-28 08:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 16:07 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-03 09:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-03 11:32 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-04 08:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 09:57 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-04 19:27 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-05 20:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-06 12:08 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-06 21:20 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-06 21:55 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 22:04 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-07 16:04 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-07 18:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-07 14:38 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 07:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 03:16 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 21:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-09 06:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 14:13 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-10 07:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-10 03:36 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-10 12:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 11:48 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-11 06:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 13:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 15:06 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 04:14 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 10:11 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 20:35 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:33 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 13:37 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 13:54 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 18:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 20:37 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:43 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 10:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:57 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 09:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 13:10 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:20 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 12:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 20:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:21 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 09:41 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-11 16:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 11:06 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-12 15:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 08:09 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-12 17:12 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 08:37 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 02:32 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 21:08 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 09:13 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 13:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:50 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 22:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:13 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-14 12:09 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 05:29 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 11:58 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 07:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:17 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 18:37 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-16 11:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 05:07 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-16 16:37 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-16 22:02 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-17 10:24 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 07:47 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 18:32 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 10:50 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-12 21:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-13 00:06 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-13 09:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 12:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 04:58 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 13:01 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-13 14:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 11:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 12:27 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:19 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Buddy Good <erv@ervn.ni> - 2022-03-15 19:14 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:11 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 17:31 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-25 00:31 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-25 08:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-14 21:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-17 19:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-17 15:02 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:46 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:18 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 07:45 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-15 11:39 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 07:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-16 03:16 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-16 10:55 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-17 13:48 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 08:16 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-18 13:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 07:50 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-19 13:05 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-20 08:47 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-20 13:04 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-21 11:13 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 20:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-22 19:32 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 17:09 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-15 11:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-15 14:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 14:22 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-15 22:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-14 08:58 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-14 19:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:03 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-15 10:39 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 17:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 12:24 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:02 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 07:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 08:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-16 10:28 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-16 21:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:07 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-17 14:59 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-18 06:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:25 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 08:05 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 00:20 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 09:25 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:35 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-19 15:28 +0000
Cretin Richard Lengrand at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 10:13 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-20 08:41 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 14:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-19 15:14 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 21:31 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-20 22:38 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-20 22:23 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 08:56 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-21 11:52 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 04:43 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-21 21:26 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-22 22:40 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:55 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-23 11:19 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-24 08:54 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-24 15:00 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-25 08:25 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-25 15:15 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 07:39 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-26 10:51 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 17:35 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-14 12:18 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-15 08:24 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 17:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 19:15 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-08 11:10 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-08 21:17 +0100
Nazi cretin Thomas Heger eats shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 14:50 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-09 15:40 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-10 08:04 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-10 10:40 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-11 07:10 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 13:52 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-12 08:42 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 22:29 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-12 20:43 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Jessie Breit <jbre@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-13 20:15 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-17 08:27 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 03:42 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 08:48 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 01:17 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-19 10:23 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-19 20:30 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-19 17:32 -0400
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-19 22:45 -0700
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-19 12:52 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-18 13:14 +0200
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 22:46 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 16:51 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-13 01:03 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 07:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-03 12:09 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 15:33 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:42 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:34 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:35 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-13 09:36 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-13 19:08 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 17:09 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 23:04 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-02-13 09:17 +0100
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 05:54 -0800
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-13 10:35 -0500
Re: New rewritten version of 'annotated version of SRT' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:31 -0800
Page 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 16:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f215753a-b7fe-45e6-afeb-a471dcbd2e29n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578905 |
El sábado, 26 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:10:47 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió: > Am 26.02.2022 um 11:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > > > > You have some strange ideas. > > > >> Planck was a rather stiff Pruessan Protestant, a professor of physics > >> and very aware of status and age, while Einstein was (in 1905) a young > >> and lazy half-baked physicist, with an excentric outfit, who worked in a > >> Swiss patent office. > > > > More strange ideas. Einstein was a patent clerk, > > and he dressed as any civil servant would. > > (in a conservative three-part suit, with a tie) > > <https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae14.htm> > > He did physics in his spare time > > so he cannot have been lazy or half-baked, > > given his known output. > 'with 'half-baked' I meant, that Einstein left university with a degree > as a teatcher of natural science. Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals before the SR paper. (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any measure his scientific output was very high. > But Planck lived in Berlin, while Einstein was still Swiss citizen. > So how could they even talk to each other? > > It is also more than questionable, that Planck, who was authoritarian > and conservative to the bones, wanted to maintain friendship to a Swiss > leftist, who needed a haircut and wore no socks. "In 1905, the three epochal papers by Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik. Planck was among the few who immediately recognized the significance of the special theory of relativity. Thanks to his influence, this theory was soon widely accepted in Germany. Planck also contributed considerably to extend the special theory of relativity. For example, he recast the theory in terms of classical action. Einstein's hypothesis of light quanta (photons), based on Heinrich Hertz's 1887 discovery (and further investigation by Philipp Lenard) of the photoelectric effect, was initially rejected by Planck. He was unwilling to discard completely Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics. "The theory of light would be thrown back not by decades, but by centuries, into the age when Christiaan Huygens dared to fight against the mighty emission theory of Isaac Newton ..." In 1910, Einstein pointed out the anomalous behavior of specific heat at low temperatures as another example of a phenomenon which defies explanation by classical physics. Planck and Nernst, seeking to clarify the increasing number of contradictions, organized the First Solvay Conference (Brussels 1911). At this meeting Einstein was able to convince Planck. Meanwhile, Planck had been appointed dean of Berlin University, whereby it was possible for him to call Einstein to Berlin and establish a new professorship for him (1914). Soon the two scientists became close friends and met frequently to play music together".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 08:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j80pa4FfpcaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578929 |
Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > El sábado, 26 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:10:47 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió: >> Am 26.02.2022 um 11:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > >>> >>> You have some strange ideas. >>> >>>> Planck was a rather stiff Pruessan Protestant, a professor of physics >>>> and very aware of status and age, while Einstein was (in 1905) a young >>>> and lazy half-baked physicist, with an excentric outfit, who worked in a >>>> Swiss patent office. >>> >>> More strange ideas. Einstein was a patent clerk, >>> and he dressed as any civil servant would. >>> (in a conservative three-part suit, with a tie) >>> <https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae14.htm> >>> He did physics in his spare time >>> so he cannot have been lazy or half-baked, >>> given his known output. > >> 'with 'half-baked' I meant, that Einstein left university with a degree >> as a teatcher of natural science. > > Nonsense!!! > Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals before the SR paper. (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any measure his scientific output was very high. All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: too good too fast too young. E.g he spent only a little more than ten years in school, while the requirements for the exam of 'Gymnasium' (called 'Abitur') were 13 years. He started to study at the presitigious University ETH in Zurich at the age of 17, while usually you couldn't (mainly because Abitur was available only from 18 or 19 on). That study took him only four years, what is actually fast. But when it came to publishing, he made news records: he wrote, handed in and got published six main papers in 1905 alone. From this 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' alone covered 30 pages of 'Annalen der Physik'. That was handed in only five weeks after he handed in the previous paper. That was breathtakingly fast, even if he didn't have to work, didn't sleep, eat or drink and was not 'married with children'. (But, in fact, he had to work six days a week for eight hours each.) So his life looked like this: After walking home from work, he had his wife and two infant waiting, who wanted to assist him in revolutionising the world of physics. So the entire family helped him, sharpened his feather, gave him the ink jar, lit a candle and silently watched him thinking about the universe and the relevance of the speed of light for synchronizing remote clocks, while Einstein's hands wizzed over the stash of paper, which he had to fill overnight with all of his insigsights. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 05:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <485121e8-9b38-4a11-86c1-f64a3f2f2fa3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578959 |
El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió: > Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > > Nonsense!!! > > Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals before the SR paper. (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any measure his scientific output was very high. > All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: > too good > too fast > too young. > What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the Annalen der Physik: 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method for investigating molecular forces. His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. <snip> more nonsense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 16:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1po1jzt.1rs3s4e15xm9j3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #578973 |
Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote: > El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió: > > Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > > > > Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers > > > in journals before the SR paper. (see > > > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific > > > output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any > > > measure his scientific output was very high. > > > All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: > > too good > > too fast > > too young. > > > > What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a > widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to > publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the Annalen > der Physik Einstein's IQ having been 160 is an invention of the IQ mafia. Einstein never had his IQ 'measured'. (I guess he didn't like pseudo-sciece) Every now and then some unfortunate kiddie is lionised in newspapers as 'smarter than Einstein', for having scored 160+alittlebit in some kind of test. This is abusive, because it means setting up the kiddie for a lifetime of failure. It should be punishable with 40 lashes, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j83ec3FsnsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578973 |
Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios: > El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger escribió: >> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > >>> Nonsense!!! >>> Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers in journals before the SR paper. (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any measure his scientific output was very high. > >> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: >> too good >> too fast >> too young. >> > > What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the Annalen der Physik: > > 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. > 2) On the thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method for investigating molecular forces. > > His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. > He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905. That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then. That is quite a lot to write, even if you have much more time and not a familly and a full-time job. Besides of that, the topics themselves were not of the easy kind and covered several difficult branches of physics. But Einstein was characterized by different people and at different times and locations as rather slow and lazy. So how could you piece that together to a consistent picture, if you exclude help from unknown sides. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 12:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1po2ypz.1a6q0ih3y202fN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #579081 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios: > > El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger: > >> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > > > >>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers > >>> in journals before the SR paper. (see > >>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific > >>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any > >>> measure his scientific output was very high. > > > >> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: > >> too good > >> too fast > >> too young. > >> > > > > What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a > >widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to > >publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the > >Annalen der Physik: > > > > 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the > > thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and > > fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method > > for investigating molecular forces. > > > > His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the > >1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June > >30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. > > > > He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal > 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905. > > That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which > he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then. ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas, and not just on relativity. Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing between the goose feather and the ball pen? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-01 08:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j85v3kFfmc6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579083 |
Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios: >>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger: >>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: >>> >>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers >>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see >>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific >>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any >>>>> measure his scientific output was very high. >>> >>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery. It has all the signs of such: >>>> too good >>>> too fast >>>> too young. >>>> >>> >>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a >>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to >>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the >>> Annalen der Physik: >>> >>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the >>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and >>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method >>> for investigating molecular forces. >>> >>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the >>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June >>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. >>> >> >> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal >> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905. >> >> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which >> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then. > > ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas, > and not just on relativity. > Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing > between the goose feather and the ball pen? > Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals. And they looked like this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine) Pencils were an option and fountain pens. But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in 1905. That certainly excluded computers or anything similar. To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have worked on into perfect form and shape. So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some notes. This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth, until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like. The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to write it several times. For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20 times as much, before the article is finished. This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job). Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric light was thinkable, thou not very common. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-01 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1po4tjp.1pzn5n21ovk9qfN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #579178 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > > > >> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios: > >>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger: > >>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: > >>> > >>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers > >>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see > >>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific > >>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any > >>>>> measure his scientific output was very high. > >>> > >>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery.It has all the signs of such: > >>>> too good > >>>> too fast > >>>> too young. > >>>> > >>> > >>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a > >>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to > >>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the > >>> Annalen der Physik: > >>> > >>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the > >>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and > >>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method > >>> for investigating molecular forces. > >>> > >>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the > >>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June > >>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. > >>> > >> > >> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal > >> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905. > >> > >> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which > >> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then. > > > > ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas, > > and not just on relativity. > > Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing > > between the goose feather and the ball pen? > > > > Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals. > > And they looked like this > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine) Yes, and too impractical except for special documents. > Pencils were an option and fountain pens. Fountain pens were already hugely popular in late 19th century. Most people who wrote a lot professionally used a nib pen though, and had a writing desk with an inkwell built in. Here is Einstein at his. <https://www.bern.com/assets/images/5/einsteinhaus_03-5d63a895.jpg> (a reconstruction) And yes, writing was often done standing in those days. > But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in > 1905. > > That certainly excluded computers or anything similar. > > To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have > worked on into perfect form and shape. By what we know about it Einstein finally had the right idea sometime in spring 1905, and he wrote it all up more or less in one go. Quite possible, once you have the right idea it is all quite straightforward. > So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some > notes. > > This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth, > until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like. Perhaps, for more pedestrian minds. > The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to > write it several times. Standard practice at the time was to correct galley proofs. The journal would typeset the manuscript, print off a few copies, send you one, and you indicated what needed to be changed. (easy, with movable type) > For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20 > times as much, before the article is finished. > > This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an > unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because > he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job). Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past. Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps. Jan > Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric > light was thinkable, thou not very common. > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-01 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <svlf07$10hv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579184 |
On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am 28.02.2022 um 12:06 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 14:18 schrieb Paparios: >>>>> El domingo, 27 de febrero de 2022 a las 4:59:04 UTC-3, Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am 27.02.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Paparios: >>>>> >>>>>>> Nonsense!!! Starting in 1900, in 1905 Einstein had published 23 papers >>>>>>> in journals before the SR paper. (see >>>>>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/). This scientific >>>>>>> output includes his PhD dissertation (number 15 in the list). By any >>>>>>> measure his scientific output was very high. >>>>> >>>>>> All of the CV of Einstein looks like fakery.It has all the signs of such: >>>>>> too good >>>>>> too fast >>>>>> too young. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What a load of nonsense you write in each of your posts. Einstein was a >>>>> widely recognized genious (IQ between 160 and 200) which allowed him to >>>>> publish, when he was 21 years old, two very relevant papers in the >>>>> Annalen der Physik: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Conclusions drawn from the phenomena of capillarity. 2) On the >>>>> thermodynamic theory of the difference in potentials between metals and >>>>> fully dissociated solutions of their salts and on an electrical method >>>>> for investigating molecular forces. >>>>> >>>>> His genious allowed him to research in a vast amount of subjects, as the >>>>> 1905 papers prove. He was 26 years old when he sent the SR paper (June >>>>> 30, 1905) which was published in September 26, 1905. >>>>> >>>> >>>> He handed in SIX papers, which covered about 92 pages in the journal >>>> 'Annalen der Physik' in the same year 1905. >>>> >>>> That would have been roughly four hundred handwritten pages, for which >>>> he had to use ink and feather, because ball pens were not invented then. >>> >>> ROTFL, sorry. You really have the strangest ideas, >>> and not just on relativity. >>> Do you really believe that there were no other means of writing >>> between the goose feather and the ball pen? >>> >> >> Typewriters were already invented, but too expensive for common mortals. >> >> And they looked like this >> >> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_(Schreibmaschine) > > Yes, and too impractical except for special documents. > >> Pencils were an option and fountain pens. > > Fountain pens were already hugely popular in late 19th century. > Most people who wrote a lot professionally used a nib pen though, > and had a writing desk with an inkwell built in. > Here is Einstein at his. > <https://www.bern.com/assets/images/5/einsteinhaus_03-5d63a895.jpg> > (a reconstruction) > And yes, writing was often done standing in those days. > >> But in any case Einstein had to write by hand with what was available in >> 1905. >> >> That certainly excluded computers or anything similar. >> >> To get a paper published, you need to 'condense' something you have >> worked on into perfect form and shape. > > By what we know about it Einstein finally had the right idea > sometime in spring 1905, and he wrote it all up more or less in one go. > Quite possible, once you have the right idea > it is all quite straightforward. > >> So: you start with a black board and draw scetches, equations and some >> notes. >> >> This would be written down, rethought, rewritten, redrawn and so forth, >> until finally you get the idea, how your article shall look like. > > Perhaps, for more pedestrian minds. > >> The final article needs a number of corrections, too, hence you have to >> write it several times. > > Standard practice at the time was to correct galley proofs. > The journal would typeset the manuscript, print off a few copies, > send you one, and you indicated what needed to be changed. > (easy, with movable type) > >> For an article of 30 pages I would assume, you need to write at least 20 >> times as much, before the article is finished. >> >> This would multiply the demands of handwriting for Einstein to an >> unbearable amount. This also multiplied the demands for candles, because >> he had to work mainly at night (because he had a full-time day-light job). > > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past. > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps. Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself. > > Jan > >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric >> light was thinkable, thou not very common. Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the production methods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-01 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e7c4b59-07c7-4e75-961d-122ab0b5ff61n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579201 |
El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió: > On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: > > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past. > > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps. > Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself. > > > > Jan > > > >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric > >> light was thinkable, thou not very common. > Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with > the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the > production methods. In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe, residential electric lights were common by 1900.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-01 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1po5gjq.1dzcsqwu5e3p1N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #579203 |
Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote: > El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió: > > On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: > > > > Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past. > > > Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps. > > Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > >> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric > > >> light was thinkable, thou not very common. > > Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with > > the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the > > production methods. > > In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe, > residential electric lights were common by 1900. Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight, with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history. It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt that Einstein couldn't have done it, because his fingers would have gotten too sore., Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 08:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j88j85Fk56U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579217 |
Am 01.03.2022 um 21:51 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote: > >> El martes, 1 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:44:16 UTC-3, Michael Moroney escribió: >>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: >> >>>> Candles, really. You are inventing your own fantasy past. >>>> Those who had no gaslight (yet) would use oil lamps. >>> Oil lamps were pretty common before electric lighting established itself. >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>>> Sure, possibly he had gas light, at least in one room. Even electric >>>>> light was thinkable, thou not very common. >>> Urban areas frequently had gas lighting before electric lighting, with >>> the gas called town gas, coal gas or water gas, depending on the >>> production methods. >> >> In Chile we started to have electric public lights by 1890. In Europe, >> residential electric lights were common by 1900. > > Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight, > with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history. > > It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt > that Einstein couldn't have done it, > because his fingers would have gotten too sore., > Ok, I have accegerated a bit... But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity in 1905: the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote that year. (btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics'). He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year. Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year (besides of working fulltime and managing a young family with two toddlers). This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the required material, rethink that and find and formulate new revolutionary ideas. Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in German, like those of Henry Poincaré. Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some unknown sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and delivered, what was presented as Einstein's work. Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that person doing other important tasks. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bjHTJ.12343$u91.5347@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #579239 |
Den 02.03.2022 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 01.03.2022 um 21:51 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >> >> Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight, >> with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history. >> >> It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt >> that Einstein couldn't have done it, >> because his fingers would have gotten too sore., >> > > Ok, I have accegerated a bit... > > > But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity in > 1905: > > the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote > that year. > > (btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he > invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics'). > > He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three > build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year. > > > Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve > in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year (besides > of working fulltime and managing a young family with two toddlers). > > > This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in > question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the required > material, rethink that and find and formulate new revolutionary ideas. > > Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in German, > like those of Henry Poincaré. > > Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some unknown > sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and delivered, > what was presented as Einstein's work. So who was the unknown genius who wrote all those articles that Einstein was unable to write? But since it was impossible for even a genius to write all those papers, maybe it was a secret group of physicists who had all the new ideas about relativity and wrote all the papers? > > Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in > certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the > credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that > person doing other important tasks. > Quite. It must have been very important for the unknown geniuses to upheld the credibility of the rather unknown patent clerk. Honestly Richard, don't you understand how ridiculous this is? Of course you do, so what is your motivation for pretending to be an idiot? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 11:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1po6t45.1wg0i1xfitsc0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #579246 |
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 02.03.2022 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: > > Am 01.03.2022 um 21:51 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > >> > >> Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight, > >> with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history. > >> > >> It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt > >> that Einstein couldn't have done it, > >> because his fingers would have gotten too sore., > >> > > > > Ok, I have accegerated a bit... > > > > > > But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity in > > 1905: > > > > the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote > > that year. > > > > (btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he > > invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics'). > > > > He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three > > build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year. > > > > > > Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve > > in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year (besides > > of working fulltime and managing a young family with two toddlers). > > > > > > This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in > > question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the required > > material, rethink that and find and formulate new revolutionary ideas. > > > > Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in German, > > like those of Henry Poincaré. > > > > Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some unknown > > sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and delivered, > > what was presented as Einstein's work. > > So who was the unknown genius who wrote all those articles > that Einstein was unable to write? > But since it was impossible for even a genius to write all > those papers, maybe it was a secret group of physicists > who had all the new ideas about relativity and wrote all > the papers? > > > > > Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in > > certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the > > credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that > > person doing other important tasks. > > > > Quite. > It must have been very important for the unknown geniuses > to upheld the credibility of the rather unknown patent clerk. > > > Honestly Richard, don't you understand how ridiculous this is? > Of course you do, so what is your motivation for pretending > to be an idiot? There is a hard-core feminist theory that it was really Mileva who had all those brilliant ideas and wrote those papers. Women have stronger fingers from all that washing they do, you know, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 08:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j8bac9FgielU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579246 |
Am 02.03.2022 um 11:04 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > > Den 02.03.2022 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am 01.03.2022 um 21:51 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >>> >>> Yes. The idea of Einstein scribbling his papers by candlelight, >>> with a goose quill, is nothing but T.Heger's alternative history. >>> >>> It proves beyond reasonable TH's doubt >>> that Einstein couldn't have done it, >>> because his fingers would have gotten too sore., >>> >> >> Ok, I have accegerated a bit... >> >> >> But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity >> in 1905: >> >> the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote >> that year. >> >> (btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he >> invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics'). >> >> He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three >> build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year. >> >> >> Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve >> in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year >> (besides of working fulltime and managing a young family with two >> toddlers). >> >> >> This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in >> question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the >> required material, rethink that and find and formulate new >> revolutionary ideas. >> >> Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in >> German, like those of Henry Poincaré. >> >> Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some >> unknown sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and >> delivered, what was presented as Einstein's work. > > So who was the unknown genius who wrote all those articles > that Einstein was unable to write? Who wrote all the other books, that have been ascribed to geniusses? I would say, in many cases, there were 'homeworkers' of some kind involved, who produced, what the geniusses have allegedly written. This would free the geniusses from the tidious work of reading, thinking and writing and allow them to do other tasks (predominately spying). We find this all over the place. E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally written in English and the alleged author was actually a spy. > But since it was impossible for even a genius to write all > those papers, maybe it was a secret group of physicists > who had all the new ideas about relativity and wrote all > the papers? Well, pyhsicists are producing usually papers. Most of these papers were not recognised by anybody, hence are available for cheap. Even in this forum almost every participant has some kind of masterpiece written, which nobody wants. Now scale this up to the entire body of physics and you'll have millions of papers worldwide, which nobody wants. That is high supply and low demands, what would result in very low prices. Now you could buy a few, hand them to the spy and ask the real authors to keep their mouth shut, unless they want to disappear without a trace. >> >> Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in >> certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the >> credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that >> person doing other important tasks. >> > > Quite. > It must have been very important for the unknown geniuses > to upheld the credibility of the rather unknown patent clerk. > If there is a spy, what could possibly be the reason? Certainly there are several possibilities: one is to aquirre hidden knowledge and another is to influence developments into a desired direction. If we think for a moment about the possibility, that Einstein was actually a spy. What could be possibly the hidden knowledge to seek for? In Einsteins case this is obvious, because the other friends of Max Planck and his musicians circle were Liese meitner and Otto Hahn. These were for all practical purposes the inventors of nuclear energy, while still in its infancy. That is certainly a good target for a spy. To foster credibility, you only need to buy a few of these hidden masterpieces, rewrite them a bit and pretend, that Einstein actually wrote them. the reward for the spy were: a 'job', where he had to do almost nothing eternal and worldwide fame a Nobel Prize TH > Honestly Richard, don't you understand how ridiculous this is? > Of course you do, so what is your motivation for pretending > to be an idiot? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <_p%TJ.1102905$ahb3.69603@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #579312 |
Den 03.03.2022 08:51, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 02.03.2022 um 11:04 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> Den 02.03.2022 08:04, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> But there is a much more serious problem with Einstein's productivity >>> in 1905: >>> >>> the six articles in 'Annalen der Physik' were not everything he wrote >>> that year. >>> >>> (btw: For one of these articles he won a Nobel price. In another he >>> invented a new kind of physics called 'Quantum mechanics'). >>> >>> He also wrote 21 reviews in 1905 for the same journal, of which three >>> build his Ph.D. thesis, what he also handed in the very same year. >>> >>> >>> Most (if not all) physicists would have been glad and proud to achieve >>> in a lifetime, what Einstein had allegdly done in a single year >>> (besides of working fulltime and managing a young family with two >>> toddlers). >>> >>> >>> This would stretch even the ability for physical writing the texts in >>> question beyond the plausible realm, let alone to read all the >>> required material, rethink that and find and formulate new >>> revolutionary ideas. >>> >>> Some of the (apparently) used sources were not even available in >>> German, like those of Henry Poincaré. >>> >>> Therefore, a much more plausible explanation would be, that some >>> unknown sources provided helpfull hands and heads, which created and >>> delivered, what was presented as Einstein's work. >> >> So who was the unknown genius who wrote all those articles >> that Einstein was unable to write? > > Who wrote all the other books, that have been ascribed to geniusses? > > I would say, in many cases, there were 'homeworkers' of some kind > involved, who produced, what the geniusses have allegedly written. > > This would free the geniusses from the tidious work of reading, thinking > and writing and allow them to do other tasks (predominately spying). > > We find this all over the place. > > E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My > Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally written > in English and the alleged author was actually a spy. > > >> But since it was impossible for even a genius to write all >> those papers, maybe it was a secret group of physicists >> who had all the new ideas about relativity and wrote all >> the papers? > > > Well, pyhsicists are producing usually papers. > > Most of these papers were not recognised by anybody, hence are available > for cheap. > > Even in this forum almost every participant has some kind of masterpiece > written, which nobody wants. > > Now scale this up to the entire body of physics and you'll have millions > of papers worldwide, which nobody wants. > > That is high supply and low demands, what would result in very low prices. > > Now you could buy a few, hand them to the spy and ask the real authors > to keep their mouth shut, unless they want to disappear without a trace. > > >>> >>> Even if that sounds far fetched, it is seemingly common practise in >>> certain realms, where it is regarded necessary to support the >>> credibility of a certain guy and to free him from work, to allow that >>> person doing other important tasks. >>> >> >> Quite. >> It must have been very important for the unknown geniuses >> to upheld the credibility of the rather unknown patent clerk. >> > > > If there is a spy, what could possibly be the reason? > > Certainly there are several possibilities: one is to aquirre hidden > knowledge and another is to influence developments into a desired > direction. > > If we think for a moment about the possibility, that Einstein was > actually a spy. What could be possibly the hidden knowledge to seek for? > > In Einsteins case this is obvious, because the other friends of Max > Planck and his musicians circle were Liese meitner and Otto Hahn. > > These were for all practical purposes the inventors of nuclear energy, > while still in its infancy. > > That is certainly a good target for a spy. > > To foster credibility, you only need to buy a few of these hidden > masterpieces, rewrite them a bit and pretend, that Einstein actually > wrote them. > > the reward for the spy were: > a 'job', where he had to do almost nothing > eternal and worldwide fame > a Nobel Prize > > > TH >> Honestly Richard, don't you understand how ridiculous this is? >> Of course you do, so what is your motivation for pretending >> to be an idiot? >> > Sorry for accusing you of pretending. You are not! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 02:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2809b05-e22f-402c-b505-00f1508d16cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579312 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:51:40 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My > Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally written > in English and the alleged author was actually a spy. Oh, dear. I don't know where that would rank on the scale that includes flat-earthers, Apollo 11 denialists, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 08:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j8dse1F114iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579322 |
Am 03.03.2022 um 11:36 schrieb Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:51:40 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My >> Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally written >> in English and the alleged author was actually a spy. > > Oh, dear. > > I don't know where that would rank on the scale that includes > flat-earthers, Apollo 11 denialists, etc. > I am German and able to read and write in German, while speaking English quite well, but actually not as good as German. I had a discussion with a guy on alt.conspiracy, who always cited 'My Struggle'. After finding similar quites of the same text in German, I found, the German must be a translation of the English text and not the other way round. I have spent a lot of time on this particular subject and can actually prove, that a certain version written in English and published in 1933 by Paternoster Library is most likely the origional, while the German is an editted translation. The reasons are very difficult to explain, which also would require a lot of space in this news.group unrelated to German history. But a few things are actually possible: The very first sentence of the English version mentioned above was missing in the German version. So: how could that be? The first sentence is historically incorrect, because it stated, that the NSDAP was founded in 1919, while it actually was founded in 1920. Therefore the first sentence needed to be removed in the translation, if my assumption is correct. If the public narrative would be correct, the publisher had to have added a sentence in 1933, which was historically incorrect. But (of course) only my assumption makes sense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 15:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dhpUJ.49206$u91.38521@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #579408 |
Den 04.03.2022 08:12, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am 03.03.2022 um 11:36 schrieb Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: >> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:51:40 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >>> E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My >>> Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally written >>> in English and the alleged author was actually a spy. >> >> Oh, dear. >> >> I don't know where that would rank on the scale that includes >> flat-earthers, Apollo 11 denialists, etc. >> > > I am German and able to read and write in German, while speaking English > quite well, but actually not as good as German. > > > I had a discussion with a guy on alt.conspiracy, who always cited 'My > Struggle'. > > After finding similar quites of the same text in German, I found, the > German must be a translation of the English text and not the other way > round. > > I have spent a lot of time on this particular subject and can actually > prove, that a certain version written in English and published in 1933 > by Paternoster Library is most likely the origional, while the German is > an editted translation. > > > The reasons are very difficult to explain, which also would require a > lot of space in this news.group unrelated to German history. > > But a few things are actually possible: > > The very first sentence of the English version mentioned above was > missing in the German version. > > So: how could that be? > > The first sentence is historically incorrect, because it stated, that > the NSDAP was founded in 1919, while it actually was founded in 1920. "Sozialrevolutionäre Partei" was founded in 1919. This may well have been mentioned in a "translator's introduction" or equivalent. "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" was founded in 1920. I don't think the short NSDAP was used in Mein Kampf (could be wrong). > > Therefore the first sentence needed to be removed in the translation, if > my assumption is correct. > > If the public narrative would be correct, the publisher had to have > added a sentence in 1933, which was historically incorrect. > > But (of course) only my assumption makes sense. > Of course. "My struggle" was obviously written (in English) by a spy in England some time before 1925. This spy knew Hitler very well, so he was able to write Hitlers early biography. Hitler must have read the spy's book while he was imprisoned in the Festungshaftanstalt 1925. He translated the book, and copied all the spy's thoughts about race, Marxism etc. Came to think of it: The spy must have written the book, and Hitler must have read it before 1919. How else could Hitler have known that he should found "Sozialrevolutionäre Partei" in 1919 and "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" in 1920? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j8jce2F2h28U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579422 |
Am 04.03.2022 um 15:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>
> Den 04.03.2022 08:12, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am 03.03.2022 um 11:36 schrieb Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:51:40 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> E.g. I think I can prove, that the 'masterpiece' of Hitler called 'My
>>>> Struggle' was a bad translation of a text, which was origionally
>>>> written
>>>> in English and the alleged author was actually a spy.
>>>
>>> Oh, dear.
>>>
>>> I don't know where that would rank on the scale that includes
>>> flat-earthers, Apollo 11 denialists, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I am German and able to read and write in German, while speaking
>> English quite well, but actually not as good as German.
>>
>>
>> I had a discussion with a guy on alt.conspiracy, who always cited 'My
>> Struggle'.
>>
>> After finding similar quites of the same text in German, I found, the
>> German must be a translation of the English text and not the other way
>> round.
>>
>> I have spent a lot of time on this particular subject and can actually
>> prove, that a certain version written in English and published in 1933
>> by Paternoster Library is most likely the origional, while the German
>> is an editted translation.
>>
>>
>> The reasons are very difficult to explain, which also would require a
>> lot of space in this news.group unrelated to German history.
>>
>> But a few things are actually possible:
>>
>> The very first sentence of the English version mentioned above was
>> missing in the German version.
>>
>> So: how could that be?
>>
>> The first sentence is historically incorrect, because it stated, that
>> the NSDAP was founded in 1919, while it actually was founded in 1920.
>
> "Sozialrevolutionäre Partei" was founded in 1919.
The NSDAP was actually founded earlier as DAP ('Deutsche Arbeiter
Partei' = German Workers Party') and in 1920 renamed to NSDAP.
DAP was actually an offspring from 'Thule Society', which was itself
based on the occult sect called 'Theosophy' of Helena Blavatsky.
> This may well have been mentioned in a "translator's introduction"
> or equivalent.
The 'translators' were actually Hess aand Hitler, while the version of
Paternoster Library was released as fake translation, hence the
translators introduction was faked as well.
Why they have published it remains a mystery, because it is next to
impossible, that any secret agency in the world can be THAT stupid.
But, apperently, a mixture of greed and stupidity was in operation and
possibly the publishers thought, nobody will recognize that anyhow,
while in the meantime they make some money.
The translaters notes are necessarily a later creation, while the text
itself starts with the introduction of Hitler.
The text has more historically incorrect content, mainly about WW I.
E.g. a detailled description of the figths the author had participated
is missing and the parts present are not historically correct.
From this can be drawn the conclusion, that the text is actually older
than WWI.
From linguistic analysis would follow, that the text was actually
written in English.
The why and how of such a proof are very difficult and would require to
be fluent in German and English, while most likely you aren't.
But the principle is actually simple:
English and German use slightly different concepts to express certain
things. These cannot be translated directly, because there exists no one
to one correspondence between certain linguistic constructs.
Now a certain direction of translation forces certain compromises
between accuracy of translation and the possibilities of a certain language.
Now these compromises are different for a different direction of
translation. Also certain errors are more likely for a certain direction.
Now you can count both (compromises and errors) and correlate the
numbers with the directions of traanslation.
By this you can show, that the text was written in English and from
there translated into German.
You can come to the same conclusion by other means, too.
E.g. the book 'My Struggle' requires a lot of historical, political and
phylosophical knowledge from the author.
But the alleged author Hitler was a school drop out, lived in a homeless
asylum and worked as male prostitute until the beginning of WWI.
Within that war he was wounded by gas and spent the rest of the war and
the first year of peace in Beelitz Heilstätten near Berlin, to recover
his eye sight.
So, there was no time to study Descarte and Spinoza.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web