Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596383 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 208 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 15:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:02 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-29 22:35 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 19:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-29 15:13 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 22:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 10:52 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 05:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 11:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 21:53 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 05:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 20:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-02 13:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 08:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-01 09:55 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 16:05 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 22:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 11:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 17:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:54 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:37 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan repeats the same imbecilities. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:52 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz converses with fellow cretin Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-07 21:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-08 11:11 -0800
Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:45 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:58 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 10:03 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-08 10:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 11:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 22:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 10:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:03 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 16:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:11 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 19:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 05:51 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:12 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 11:22 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:30 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 12:01 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 18:17 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 13:08 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 20:17 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-09 08:11 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 10:06 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:10 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 20:01 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:39 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 15:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:04 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 11:15 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 21:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:13 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 15:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:26 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz posts the same imbecilities once again "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Dono has no answers except lies and deceptive comments Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:11 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off his rocker (even further) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:49 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-29 12:19 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-29 14:35 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:43 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 07:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-12-01 18:42 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 11:47 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:14 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-30 14:26 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 19:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 13:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 22:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 04:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 03:12 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Soo Yong Jie <sooyongjie@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 05:15 -0800
Odious Kapo Richard Hertz gets to face reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 17:42 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:49 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 04:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:55 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 21:50 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:35 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 15:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 22:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:36 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 08:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 10:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 11:38 -0800
Imbecile Richard Hertz keeps frothing at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 14:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 03:00 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:54 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 12:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 05:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 20:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 12:23 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan learns new imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 12:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 13:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 16:01 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 03:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 09:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 11:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:09 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz reduced to mouth frothing "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 17:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-15 19:58 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:24 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:47 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:29 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-16 11:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 04:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 05:55 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 08:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-17 11:21 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 02:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 17:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:48 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz gets arsed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 10:06 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9caa2be-8354-479f-89ed-49236b00709bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596440 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:14:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:47:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > <snip> > > You keep assuming that you are smarter than all of the physicists and > > astronomers who ever lived -- that is HOPELESS. It's clear from your > > posts around here that you are outrageously ignorant of basic physics, > > so your attempts around here show you are also quite stupid. > > > > Tom Roberts > Obviously, I hit a nerve on you, Why did you say that? He simply stated the obvious, given the sheer volume of vastly incorrect posts on this NG. > Tom Roberts (Lucent´s former SW programmer, physicist wannabe). And now you are reacting like a child. (Hint: what does Tom's work have to do with gravitational deflection not being amenable to the medium refraction model?) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f86fa15-8f8a-4ff6-86ab-c6354c2e22f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596442 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: <snip> > And now you are reacting like a child. (Hint: what does Tom's work have to > do with gravitational deflection not being amenable to the medium refraction model?) Quite simple: A software programmer is as entitled to write about "gravitational lensing" as I, an EE, am able to write about light refraction as A TRUE CAUSE of the deflection of light path grazing the surface of a celestial body. CAPITO, JanPB? But Tom Roberts, the arrogant cretin, believes that he's the master of the science of physics JUST BECAUSE he plays with CGI, ERROR BARS (a classic term that this asshole repeated for years) and can DO tensor math. Pathetic, vain, pompous, hollow, egomaniac, utter self entitled, etc. It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eda987ad-d464-42cf-b6a2-8695a30e1b54n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596449 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > <snip> > > And now you are reacting like a child. (Hint: what does Tom's work have to > > do with gravitational deflection not being amenable to the medium refraction model?) > Quite simple: A software programmer is as entitled to write about "gravitational lensing" as I, an EE, am able > to write about light refraction as A TRUE CAUSE of the deflection of light path grazing the surface of a celestial body. > > CAPITO, JanPB? But you skip over an essential difference: he talks about stuff he knows and you talk about stuff you don't know. Which is fine but don't expect anyone to treat you seriously, esp. if you offend people simply becuse they know something you don't. > But Tom Roberts, the arrogant cretin, believes that he's the master of the science of physics No, it's far more simple: your posts are easily seen to be mostly incorrect. No need to tar your opponents with some silly "master of science of physics" brush. Again, stop fantasising about your opponents. It's childish. > JUST BECAUSE he plays with > CGI, ERROR BARS (a classic term that this asshole repeated for years) and can DO tensor math. No, the reason, agaion, is far simpler: your posts are incorrect and Tom's are correct. What's so hard to understand about that? I understand it's a bit disappointing but this is not Tom's fault, it's yours. > Pathetic, vain, pompous, hollow, egomaniac, utter self entitled, etc. No, he simply corrects your mistakes and is himself correct 99% of the time. You have an emotional problem if you call someone "egomaniac" just because he posts the detailed explanations proving you wrong. It also means you subconsciously realise that it takes a certain amount of effort and talent to be where he is (and you are not, mostly due to your arrogance which is monumental. This is what's killing you on this NG). > It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin. You do not have the necessities required to say anything of the sort. You are like a child laughing at an adult for leading a normal adult life. Bottom line is practically nothing you've posted here over last several years is of any value, most of it is false, incorrect, or at best infantile fantasy. Harmless but stupid. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tm8b5i$2j852$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596449 |
On 11/29/2022 4:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > <snip> > >> And now you are reacting like a child. (Hint: what does Tom's work have to >> do with gravitational deflection not being amenable to the medium refraction model?) > > Quite simple: A software programmer is as entitled to write about "gravitational lensing" as I, an EE, am able > to write about light refraction as A TRUE CAUSE of the deflection of light path grazing the surface of a celestial body. > > CAPITO, JanPB? > > But Tom Roberts, the arrogant cretin, You are the arrogant cretin around here. (your post is a perfect example of psychiatric projection regarding this) Tom has been calm and not confrontational in nearly all of his posts. Unlike yourself. > believes that he's the master of the science of physics JUST BECAUSE he plays with > CGI, ERROR BARS (a classic term that this asshole repeated for years) and can DO tensor math. He also has a PhD in high energy physics, and that by itself is reason enough to be considered a physicist, and likely expert in a related subfield. Apparently muons. And you have what in physics? As far as that stupid "mere programmer" bit, SOMEONE has to design the software's algorithm itself. Usually the same programmer. As an example, perhaps you consider it trivial to program something like Vt=(V1+V2)/(1+V1*V2/c^2). But someone has to know the physics of SR to know that in SR, the combined speed Vt is that formula and not merely V1+V2. Now write code that simulates the function of a hexapole beamline focusing magnet or something. You have to know what such a magnet does before writing code which simulates it. Plus it's obvious who is in the wrong in most cases. You just wrote how black bodies don't emit but only absorb, and that stars can't be black bodies. This shows any physicist that you don't know wtf a black body is in physics. > It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin. And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 14:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jupskmFbhfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #596523 |
On 11/30/2022 1:33 PM, Volney wrote: [...] > He also has a PhD in high energy physics, and that by itself is reason > enough to be considered a physicist, and likely expert in a related > subfield. Apparently muons. And you have what in physics? Formal education is probably the best indicator of capability, but not always. There's always Tesla along with idiot savants denying the exclusivity of a formal education as the only path to knowledge. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 14:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3464b9a1-677f-4a6a-ad55-e16a65f628e8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596536 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:27:06 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 11/30/2022 1:33 PM, Volney wrote: > > [...] > > He also has a PhD in high energy physics, and that by itself is reason > > enough to be considered a physicist, and likely expert in a related > > subfield. Apparently muons. And you have what in physics? > Formal education is probably the best indicator of capability, but not > always. There's always Tesla along with idiot savants denying the > exclusivity of a formal education as the only path to knowledge. > > [...] Besides PhD on anything about RELATIVITY are given for free. Just to augment the relativity community and its churches worldwide. Try to get a PhD in OPTICS, SOLID STATE, MECHANICS, ELECTROMAGNETISM, etc. I mean REAL PHYSICS, not pseudoscience (cosmology, particle physics, GR, SR and related SHIT).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 19:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6a8f453-dff0-4b28-8f1c-6746d6a0f255n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596555 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 2:52:01 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > Besides PhD on anything about RELATIVITY are given for free. Just to augment the relativity community and its churches > worldwide. So, Richard... do *you* have a "free:" Ph.D. in relativity? No? Why not? > Try to get a PhD in OPTICS, SOLID STATE, MECHANICS, ELECTROMAGNETISM, etc. I mean REAL PHYSICS, not pseudoscience > (cosmology, particle physics, GR, SR and related SHIT). So, Richard, in which of these disciplines is your Ph.D,? "This changes nothing -- you are still an ignorant and stupid fool, and I am still a physicist." - Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 13:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf27f956-d18c-4603-accc-4c6001fc0010n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596523 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 4:33:08 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > On 11/29/2022 4:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> And now you are reacting like a child. (Hint: what does Tom's work have to > >> do with gravitational deflection not being amenable to the medium refraction model?) > > > > Quite simple: A software programmer is as entitled to write about "gravitational lensing" as I, an EE, am able > > to write about light refraction as A TRUE CAUSE of the deflection of light path grazing the surface of a celestial body. > > > > CAPITO, JanPB? > > > > But Tom Roberts, the arrogant cretin, > You are the arrogant cretin around here. (your post is a perfect example > of psychiatric projection regarding this) Tom has been calm and not > confrontational in nearly all of his posts. Unlike yourself. > > believes that he's the master of the science of physics JUST BECAUSE he plays with > > CGI, ERROR BARS (a classic term that this asshole repeated for years) and can DO tensor math. > He also has a PhD in high energy physics, and that by itself is reason > enough to be considered a physicist, and likely expert in a related > subfield. Apparently muons. And you have what in physics? > > As far as that stupid "mere programmer" bit, SOMEONE has to design the > software's algorithm itself. Usually the same programmer. As an > example, perhaps you consider it trivial to program something like > Vt=(V1+V2)/(1+V1*V2/c^2). But someone has to know the physics of SR to > know that in SR, the combined speed Vt is that formula and not merely > V1+V2. Now write code that simulates the function of a hexapole beamline > focusing magnet or something. You have to know what such a magnet does > before writing code which simulates it. > > Plus it's obvious who is in the wrong in most cases. You just wrote how > black bodies don't emit but only absorb, and that stars can't be black > bodies. This shows any physicist that you don't know wtf a black body is > in physics. > > It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin. > And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have > an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's > why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues? Desktop physicist, with luck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 22:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tm98oq$2o3p0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596543 |
On 11/30/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 4:33:08 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 11/29/2022 4:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin. >> And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have >> an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's >> why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues? > > Desktop physicist, with luck. Meaning what? What is there to "unmask"? He may have made many important discoveries for all you know. Tell us, why not take advantage of whatever Argentina offers to its citizens for mental health care? Why do you let your obsession with a physicist who has been dead and gone for over 2/3 of a century, and his discoveries, eat at you? Don't you have something better to do with your life than let a dead man consume you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7b84e73-1491-4672-8a55-5c1de36db768n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596574 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:58:21 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: > On 11/30/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 4:33:08 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >> On 11/29/2022 4:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >>> It doesn't worth my time writing this, but I have to unmask this cretin. > > >> And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have > >> an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's > >> why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues? > > > > Desktop physicist, with luck. > Meaning what? What is there to "unmask"? He may have made many important > discoveries for all you know. > > Tell us, why not take advantage of whatever Argentina offers to its > citizens for mental health care? Why do you let your obsession with a > physicist who has been dead and gone for over 2/3 of a century, and his > discoveries, eat at you? Don't you have something better to do with your > life than let a dead man consume you? For Jews like Dick, self-hatred is an incurable disease.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-01 04:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd549df3-467d-40a8-9729-5578168fa2b6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596574 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:58:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > On 11/30/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: <snip> > >> And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have > >> an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's > >> why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues? > > > > Desktop physicist, with luck. > Meaning what? What is there to "unmask"? He may have made many important > discoveries for all you know. > > Tell us, why not take advantage of whatever Argentina offers to its > citizens for mental health care? Why do you let your obsession with a > physicist who has been dead and gone for over 2/3 of a century, and his > discoveries, eat at you? Don't you have something better to do with your > life than let a dead man consume you? Asshole, my problem is with living retarded like you, who follow a fucking cult of a pseudo-science like demented fanatics. It has to be the ADDICTION to Mathturbation. The more weird the math, the greater the pleasure of feeling SPECIAL Because MATHEMATICS is not PHYSICS, Volroney (if that is your real name). I blame Einstein for following a SOCIAL ASCENDANT PATH through theoretical physics, with the HELP of the Jewish Zionist cabal. He lived more for promoting himself with his relativity THAN doing any valuable contribution. He paid dearly for that. But MY PROBLEM is with the five generations of cretins that supported relativity for MUCH MORE REASONS than physics (privileges). Relativism opened a door to new ideas beyond physics, in the dawn of XX century. It was a GENERATIONAL thing, as classic physics had reached a dead end (in the words of Lord Kelvin, that saw the future developments as to only provide more decimal places to different constants). Obviously, the man was everything except a forecaster. If you analyze THE CONTEXT along with the rise of popularity of relativity, you will find that the idea "destroy and replace" was everywhere, in particular due to the millions of deaths in WWI and the Spanish Flu. The lust for life and innovation inundated West. Art, literature, music, fashion, cars, cinema, radio, electricity, telephony, consumer goods, social ascendant movements, LGTBQ, charleston, sexual freedom, state of the mind and traumas, infinite universe, the atom and beyond, chemistry reaching adulthood, politics based on PR, publicity based on segmented marketing, more people getting higher education, etc. And ALL OF THIS in a short period of 20 years. Then WWII killed most residues of classic thinking, and the aftermath with a world that COULD DISAPPEAR due to nuclear wars cemented the ideas of INNOVATION. Thinking things again and reformulate them. And relativity FILLED A HOLE. But it's not a SCIENCE. It's a fucking classist CULT, based on MATHEMATICS over PHYSICS, no matter how IDIOTIC the proposals were. Relativity wasn't a "food for real thoughts" that contributed to development. It was, and it is, AN ALTERNATIVE AND UNREALISTIC WAY OF THINKING WHAT REALITY IS AND HOW NATURE WORKS. Relativity DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE at all with the development of the modern, post WWII world. Not a single valuable bit. But created a CAST of assholes that had been living happily (and with privileges) of it (teaching, stupid experiments, etc.). And provided several lines of narratives for GULLIBLE PEOPLE trough MSM. The vicious circle IS REACHING ITS END, as TECHNOLOGY has been replacing SCIENCE, when corporations took control of your fucking life.Think about today: social media and its portable terminals, cheap tourism anywhere, complete sexual revolution, LGTBQ+ movement, cheap consumer goods, massive diffusion of sports and entertainment, cheap food and transportation, state funded help for "western" poor people, etc. Privileges everywhere, for anybody. That is what THE DEGENERACY OF THOUGHT that RELATIVISM has created, beyond physics. A RESET is needed, returning to a world with ABSOLUTE REFERENCES: Moral, religious, for family, for social behavior and for realistic science FOR THIS PLANET NOW, not for alien worlds 500 years in the future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-04 03:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmhkpa$3k9hv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596602 |
On 12/1/2022 7:26 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:58:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 11/30/2022 4:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> And just why do you believe you HAVE TO "unmask" Tom? Because you have >>>> an OCD related hateful obsession with relativity and Einstein, that's >>>> why. Doesn't Argentina provide help for your mental health issues? >>> >>> Desktop physicist, with luck. >> Meaning what? What is there to "unmask"? He may have made many important >> discoveries for all you know. >> >> Tell us, why not take advantage of whatever Argentina offers to its >> citizens for mental health care? Why do you let your obsession with a >> physicist who has been dead and gone for over 2/3 of a century, and his >> discoveries, eat at you? Don't you have something better to do with your >> life than let a dead man consume you? > > Asshole, Yes, you are one. > my problem is with living retarded like you, who follow a fucking cult of a pseudo-science like demented fanatics. Definitely one for the crackpot scoring. Calling sciences a "cult" or religion. > > It has to be the ADDICTION to Mathturbation. Is that what you call "pleasuring yourself"? Did it make you get a lisp? > The more weird the math, the greater the pleasure of feeling SPECIAL You are into kinky "mathturbation", I see. But please take such discussion elsewhere. > > Because MATHEMATICS is not PHYSICS, Volroney (if that is your real name). Physics is models, which almost always use math to work. We can model a falling rock on earth with position y(t) = -gt^2/2. The rock knows nothing of such math, but the math accurately predicts the fall of the rock. > > I blame Einstein for following a SOCIAL ASCENDANT PATH through theoretical physics, with the HELP of the Jewish Zionist cabal. It's a conspiracy, Adolf! <snip delusional nonsense> Why not seek the mental help you so desperately need?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Soo Yong Jie <sooyongjie@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-05 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea3d6799-a8cb-4540-8084-a902c5958321n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596800 |
There are people using Google Groups talking about science... LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 12:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Odious Kapo Richard Hertz gets to face reality |
| Message-ID | <4004cf5f-6429-407c-bb6f-65e935189680n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596440 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:14:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > I don't know who's the worst cretin here: Why? It's you, Dick. Everybody has pointed this out to you. For extra points: you are not only the worst cretin, you are also the biggest obnoxious asshole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c6c5199-acb2-4d53-829d-ed0098bd2649n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596440 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:14:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:47:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > <snip> > > You keep assuming that you are smarter than all of the physicists and > > astronomers who ever lived -- that is HOPELESS. It's clear from your > > posts around here that you are outrageously ignorant of basic physics, > > so your attempts around here show you are also quite stupid. > > > > Tom Roberts > Obviously, I hit a nerve on you, Tom Roberts (Lucent´s former SW programmer, physicist wannabe). > > Something about you, proud programmer: > > ****************************************************************************** > [...whatever...] > ****************************************************************************** > > Don't dare to criticize me, arrogant asshole. In your professional life YOU DID NOTHING MORE than repeat as a parrot what was FORCED > into your head when studying. Remember? FORCED TO. Standard crank line #1 here: experts merely repeat what they were told. > All your THEORETICAL gobbledygook contributes nothing to knowledge, yet you are showing off around like a fucking peacock. No, Tom is only proving you wrong by stating the facts in the case. Your objection above is idiotic, it's like saying that defenders in court merely parade around showing off. > Some people here, like Dono, worship you as the top dog on physics. Another standard crank line #2 here: people who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshipping" him. > But, I insist, what I only see is a self entitled arrogant and vain > anal retentive person, craving for comments with compliments about your opinion or your "career". No, it's your inferiority complex talking. For some odd reason you insist on getting involved in a field for which you have absolutely no capacity or talent for. It's very much like graphomania. I would simply switch to something else if I were you. Must it be physics? > I don't know who's the worst cretin here: You, that behave as an attention whore, No, he simply states facts and destroys toue arguments day in, day out. So you naturally feel frustrated because he ruins your fake dreamland according to which you are the only person who ever lived who understands physics. > self promote ad nauseam and look down to people, Calling you stupid at THIS stage is allowed :-) If you posted an article or two and then retracted your idiocies after being PROVED wrong, with apologies for insults, then Tom's language would be inexcusable, yes. But after your zillions of insulting idiocies all bets are off. > For me, both are ONLY indoctrinated imbeciles with whom nobody can argue a single thing, because you both are unable to think > differently, even as a thought experiment. Stop fantasising about people who are more knowledgeable than you. They really do know stuff you don't know. And they are correct when you are incorrect. Look hard in the mirror and deal with it. There is no other way. Let me repat this: there is no other way. Period. > And, finally, I've seen in my professional life (and even in college) quite a few assholes like you. Stop calling people names just because they tell you that you are wrong and you insult people. Your entire physics project on this NG is 100% worthless junk. Deal with it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 13:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faaee394-22d2-4def-9122-59bcd5ccc72cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596447 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:59:19 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:14:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:47:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > You keep assuming that you are smarter than all of the physicists and > > > astronomers who ever lived -- that is HOPELESS. It's clear from your > > > posts around here that you are outrageously ignorant of basic physics, > > > so your attempts around here show you are also quite stupid. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Obviously, I hit a nerve on you, Tom Roberts (Lucent´s former SW programmer, physicist wannabe). > > > > Something about you, proud programmer: > > > > ****************************************************************************** > > [...whatever...] > > ****************************************************************************** > > > > Don't dare to criticize me, arrogant asshole. In your professional life YOU DID NOTHING MORE than repeat as a parrot what was FORCED > > into your head when studying. Remember? FORCED TO. > Standard crank line #1 here: experts merely repeat what they were told. > > All your THEORETICAL gobbledygook contributes nothing to knowledge, yet you are showing off around like a fucking peacock. > No, Tom is only proving you wrong by stating the facts in the case. Your objection > above is idiotic, it's like saying that defenders in court merely parade around showing off. > > Some people here, like Dono, worship you as the top dog on physics. > Another standard crank line #2 here: people who agree with an argument promoted > by an expert are "worshipping" him. > > But, I insist, what I only see is a self entitled arrogant and vain > > anal retentive person, craving for comments with compliments about your opinion or your "career". > No, it's your inferiority complex talking. For some odd reason you insist on getting > involved in a field for which you have absolutely no capacity or talent for. It's > very much like graphomania. I would simply switch to something else if I were you. > Must it be physics? > > I don't know who's the worst cretin here: You, that behave as an attention whore, > No, he simply states facts and destroys toue arguments day in, day out. > So you naturally feel frustrated because he ruins your fake dreamland according > to which you are the only person who ever lived who understands physics. > > self promote ad nauseam and look down to people, > Calling you stupid at THIS stage is allowed :-) If you posted an article or two and > then retracted your idiocies after being PROVED wrong, with apologies for insults, > then Tom's language would be inexcusable, yes. But after your zillions of insulting > idiocies all bets are off. > > For me, both are ONLY indoctrinated imbeciles with whom nobody can argue a single thing, because you both are unable to think > > differently, even as a thought experiment. > Stop fantasising about people who are more knowledgeable than you. They > really do know stuff you don't know. And they are correct when you are > incorrect. > > Look hard in the mirror and deal with it. > > There is no other way. Let me repat this: there is no other way. Period. > > And, finally, I've seen in my professional life (and even in college) quite a few assholes like you. > Stop calling people names just because they tell you that you are wrong > and you insult people. > > Your entire physics project on this NG is 100% worthless junk. Deal with it. > > -- > Jan 1) Mathematics IS NOT Physics. 2) SW programming IS NOT Physics. 3) GR IS NOT Physics. 4) You ARE NOT a Physicist. 5) Dono IS NOT a Physicist. 6) Tom Roberts IS NOT a Physicist. Just a SW programmer that play the muon game, the gravity game and similar shit. I don't give a shit about what you or similar specie(s) think and write about me. I'm here to mock at relativity and Einstein's worshipers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 13:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with reality |
| Message-ID | <233cc073-defa-433c-b37b-f7b0777b3243n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596451 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 1:18:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > I'm here to eat shit every opportunity I have, every thread I open Yup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 17:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vIidndBUnvB9BRv-nZ2dnZfqlJxg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #596440 |
On 11/29/22 2:14 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > [...] My goodness, so many lies, so much misinformation. And you STILL do not understand very much about basic physics. I feel no need to respond to your lies and vituperation -- stupid is as stupid does. For the record, I received a Ph. D. in physics in 1975 from the University of Illinois. I have been employed as a professional physicist for over 27 years of my career, including today. My primary field is High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics), in which Special Relativity plays a major, foundational role; I have been interested in, and lectured on, the experimental basis of SR for many years. I have also studied General Relativity with interest and fascination. I am not "brainwashed" or "a parrot", I simply discuss how generally accepted theories of physics apply to topics in this newsgroup. This changes nothing -- you are still an ignorant and stupid fool, and I am still a physicist. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 16:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8b91fbf-8828-4fd0-927a-975db75be7a0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596465 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 8:42:31 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: <snip> > For the record, I received a Ph. D. in physics in 1975 from the > University of Illinois. I have been employed as a professional physicist > for over 27 years of my career, including today. So, it makes 27 years from 1975 to 2002 (age 50/51). Then, from 2002 to 2022 (age 70/71) you started a journey going deep into SR/GR (the paralelism with Dono scares me). He got his master in relativist electrodynamics by that epoch, after he was sacked from a teaching position at Berkeley (IN COMPUTER GRAPHICS). Then, around that PARTICULAR PERIOD, Dono, you and JanPB (another US college dropout) started to feel THE URGE to make a name in physics (SR and GR). The three of you started to BURN OUT your brains with General Relativity, tensors and absolute differential geometry (you and JanPB. Too difficult for Dono, who stuck with SR). Then, as you got deeper into GR and its intrinsic, UNNECESSARY complexity, while you started playing with Muon Inc., you fell in love with GR. You felt special, particularly relevant in the community of GR addicts. The language of GR is barely understood by most scientists, it is full of new terms that mean nothing to most people, Even more, periodically, new terms appear on the GR dictionary, which are created to accommodate and merge increasingly STUPID concepts (like German language). Then, like Dono and JanPB, after a while you got the courage to publish some shit. You took care that what you wrote had a 100% correlation with the narrative of the GR community. Nobody threw a tomato into your face, which encouraged you more. And THEN, when you gained momentum with GR, you dared to WRITE INTO sci.physics.research some nano-incremental variations of the trending topics there. Because you are A CHAMELEON, you mimic your surroundings just to move UNNOTICED while progress with your personal agenda. In that period of 2 decades, you always return to THIS SITE. But your spirit is ill, because you come here to "supervise", "patronize" and savor the compliments of suckers like Dono or JanPB, whom watch to you from their lower level in the relativity religion. And YOU LIKE IT, because you are a CRETIN. See how simple is the history of your fucking life, Tommy? You are the kind of despicable SNOB, like the anglophile Hubble (who spoke with London's high class accent). In your case, you use relativity as a mark of a certain intellectual level, above others, because you speak GR (could be Vulcan, I don't care), But have this clear: I declared publicly since my first days here that I HATE RELATIVITY. It's not physics and it's not a science. SR is based on the metaphysical PERCEPTION of the senses and Lorentz (actually Voigt) transforms. GR is based on the idea THAT SPACE CAN BENT, TWIST in the vicinity of massive stellar bodies. And such STUPID, DEMENTIAL CONCEPT found in the structure of Riemannian differential geometry, as further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita, what Grossman was searching for spacetime. But the use of it VIOLATED ITS FOUNDATIONS, because TIME is used as a four dimension (not a real length). That's why the name of PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY is correct. Gauss and Riemann would never have accepted this use. But Levi-Civita enjoyed the popularity that the use of his theory brought to him. He, too, toured all around the world and came to Argentina many times. Even he accommodated three of his assistants in teaching position at Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba, He was a cretin like the rest of the GR crew that did PR stunts with GR for two decades, having a very pleasant way of life. To close this post: Your complex GR IS NOT LESS COMPLEX than Astrology. Even, Astrology is FAR MORE popular and accurate than General Relativity. Kings, Emperors, Presidents and many, many public figures use Astrology before doing shit. And I agree with that: Astrology's scientific background has more REAL VALUE for people around the world. But, I think that Astrology is a pseudo-science, like relativity. I don't mind their predictions nor the attitude of their believers. It's a matter of PAGAN FAITH. But relativity? IT'S AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP, AS WELL AS THEIR FOLLOWERS. SICK PEOPLE. > My primary field is > High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics), in which Special > Relativity plays a major, foundational role; I have been interested in, > and lectured on, the experimental basis of SR for many years. I have > also studied General Relativity with interest and fascination. > > I am not "brainwashed" or "a parrot", I simply discuss how generally > accepted theories of physics apply to topics in this newsgroup. > > This changes nothing -- you are still an ignorant and stupid fool, and I > am still a physicist. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 16:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc68db89-939b-49ee-8db4-cd97ab349159n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596470 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 8:42:31 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > <snip> > > For the record, I received a Ph. D. in physics in 1975 from the > > University of Illinois. I have been employed as a professional physicist > > for over 27 years of my career, including today. > So, it makes 27 years from 1975 to 2002 (age 50/51). > Then, from 2002 to 2022 (age 70/71) you started a journey going deep into SR/GR (the paralelism with Dono scares me). > He got his master in relativist electrodynamics by that epoch, after he was sacked from a teaching position at Berkeley > (IN COMPUTER GRAPHICS). Then, around that PARTICULAR PERIOD, Dono, you and JanPB (another US college dropout) > started to feel THE URGE to make a name in physics (SR and GR). The three of you started to BURN OUT your brains with > General Relativity, tensors and absolute differential geometry (you and JanPB. Too difficult for Dono, who stuck with SR). > > Then, as you got deeper into GR and its intrinsic, UNNECESSARY complexity, while you started playing with Muon Inc., you > fell in love with GR. You felt special, particularly relevant in the community of GR addicts. The language of GR is barely > understood by most scientists, it is full of new terms that mean nothing to most people, Even more, periodically, new terms > appear on the GR dictionary, which are created to accommodate and merge increasingly STUPID concepts (like German language). > > Then, like Dono and JanPB, after a while you got the courage to publish some shit. > > You took care that what you wrote had a 100% correlation with the narrative of the GR community. Nobody threw a tomato into your > face, which encouraged you more. And THEN, when you gained momentum with GR, you dared to WRITE INTO sci.physics.research > some nano-incremental variations of the trending topics there. Because you are A CHAMELEON, you mimic your surroundings just > to move UNNOTICED while progress with your personal agenda. > > In that period of 2 decades, you always return to THIS SITE. But your spirit is ill, because you come here to "supervise", "patronize" > and savor the compliments of suckers like Dono or JanPB, whom watch to you from their lower level in the relativity religion. > > And YOU LIKE IT, because you are a CRETIN. See how simple is the history of your fucking life, Tommy? > > You are the kind of despicable SNOB, like the anglophile Hubble (who spoke with London's high class accent). In your case, > you use relativity as a mark of a certain intellectual level, above others, because you speak GR (could be Vulcan, I don't care), > > But have this clear: I declared publicly since my first days here that I HATE RELATIVITY. It's not physics and it's not a science. > SR is based on the metaphysical PERCEPTION of the senses and Lorentz (actually Voigt) transforms. GR is based on the idea > THAT SPACE CAN BENT, TWIST in the vicinity of massive stellar bodies. And such STUPID, DEMENTIAL CONCEPT found in > the structure of Riemannian differential geometry, as further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita, what Grossman was searching > for spacetime. But the use of it VIOLATED ITS FOUNDATIONS, because TIME is used as a four dimension (not a real length). > > That's why the name of PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY is correct. Gauss and Riemann would never have accepted this use. > But Levi-Civita enjoyed the popularity that the use of his theory brought to him. He, too, toured all around the world and came to > Argentina many times. Even he accommodated three of his assistants in teaching position at Buenos Aires, Rosario and Cordoba, > > He was a cretin like the rest of the GR crew that did PR stunts with GR for two decades, having a very pleasant way of life. > > To close this post: Your complex GR IS NOT LESS COMPLEX than Astrology. Even, Astrology is FAR MORE popular and accurate > than General Relativity. Kings, Emperors, Presidents and many, many public figures use Astrology before doing shit. > > And I agree with that: Astrology's scientific background has more REAL VALUE for people around the world. > > But, I think that Astrology is a pseudo-science, like relativity. I don't mind their predictions nor the attitude of their believers. It's a > matter of PAGAN FAITH. > > But relativity? IT'S AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP, AS WELL AS THEIR FOLLOWERS. SICK PEOPLE. Just change your hobby. Must it be physics? Because everything you posted above about physics is not even wrong, it's just a rant against some nonexistent fantasy. Why are you wasting your life away chasing a mirage? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web