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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 17:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <tmvqad$16ko3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597087 |
Richard Hertz wrote: >> Is that really you, Dono? With a headscarf, a dangling earring and that >> open collared white shirt...yes...I can see the gypsy in this person. > > http://www.alliacense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image1.png > > Yes, this is Dono (2020 pic). > > You can almost see his devil soul watching BEHIND his eyes. > > He's the "3D ART Innovator", or master strategist at "his company". Like > Tom Roberts in his Muon Inc. > > QUOTE: "Alliacense is a privately held company, founded in 2004, in > Cupertino, CA." > > Dono founded that company two years after he was sacked at Berkeley, > after 15 years working as a TEACHER and ADVISOR for the industry in the > fields of computer graphics SW (3D rendering) and silicon graphics > engines architecture. don't believe it. He never talks about graphics, for me to learn. > Then, he did his PhD on Relativistic Electrodynamics at LITHUANIA > (online), joined this group in 2007 and, when he gained courage, > started publishing in 2010 at ReseachGate and other sites. > > He was kept at Berkeley as a PC repairman. The man had to make a living. > > None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any money. > So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A > RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives (plus > 10% for the big guy). this is so cool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 09:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <157b88eb-5a3e-433b-9084-b83aedb4406bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597090 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 2:12:48 PM UTC-3, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> Is that really you, Dono? With a headscarf, a dangling earring and that > >> open collared white shirt...yes...I can see the gypsy in this person. > > > > http://www.alliacense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image1.png > > > > Yes, this is Dono (2020 pic). > > > > You can almost see his devil soul watching BEHIND his eyes. > > > > He's the "3D ART Innovator", or master strategist at "his company". Like > > Tom Roberts in his Muon Inc. > > > > QUOTE: "Alliacense is a privately held company, founded in 2004, in > > Cupertino, CA." > > > > Dono founded that company two years after he was sacked at Berkeley, > > after 15 years working as a TEACHER and ADVISOR for the industry in the > > fields of computer graphics SW (3D rendering) and silicon graphics > > engines architecture. > don't believe it. He never talks about graphics, for me to learn. > > Then, he did his PhD on Relativistic Electrodynamics at LITHUANIA > > (online), joined this group in 2007 and, when he gained courage, > > started publishing in 2010 at ReseachGate and other sites. > > > > He was kept at Berkeley as a PC repairman. The man had to make a living. > > > > None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any money. > > So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A > > RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives (plus > > 10% for the big guy). > this is so cool. https://testpubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-4809169-A PATENT SUMMARY Parallel, multiple coprocessor computer architecture having plural execution modes Patent US-4809169-A Inventor SFARTI ADRIAN (US) STRUPAT ACHIM (US) Assignee ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC (US) Country United States Dates Grant 1989/02/28 Priority 1986/04/23
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 17:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <tmvqkj$16ko3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597091 |
Richard Hertz wrote: >> > None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any money. >> > So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A >> > RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives >> > (plus 10% for the big guy). >> this is so cool. > > https://testpubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-4809169-A > > PATENT SUMMARY Parallel, multiple coprocessor computer architecture > having plural execution modes Patent US-4809169-A Inventor > SFARTI ADRIAN (US) STRUPAT ACHIM (US) > Assignee ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC (US) sfarti stands for *thirty* in Russian. Maybe it's another guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 11:22 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvh96aFtjfqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597094 |
On 12/9/2022 11:18 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > Richard Hertz wrote: > >>>> None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any money. >>>> So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A >>>> RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives >>>> (plus 10% for the big guy). >>> this is so cool. >> >> https://testpubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-4809169-A >> >> PATENT SUMMARY Parallel, multiple coprocessor computer architecture >> having plural execution modes Patent US-4809169-A Inventor >> SFARTI ADRIAN (US) STRUPAT ACHIM (US) >> Assignee ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC (US) > > sfarti stands for *thirty* in Russian. Maybe it's another guy. Go to a gay bar already...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 17:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <tmvrc8$16ko3$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597095 |
whodat wrote: >>>>> None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any >>>>> money. >>>>> So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A >>>>> RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives >>>>> (plus 10% for the big guy). >>>> this is so cool. >>> >>> https://testpubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-4809169-A >>> >>> PATENT SUMMARY Parallel, multiple coprocessor computer architecture >>> having plural execution modes Patent US-4809169-A Inventor SFARTI >>> ADRIAN (US) STRUPAT ACHIM (US) >>> Assignee ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC (US) >> >> sfarti stands for *thirty* in Russian. Maybe it's another guy. > > Go to a gay bar already... I'm not gay, but about three times gays wanted to fuck me. I suppose I am a good looking guy. I hate gays. They can't be human beings, pretending they are "normal". Are you fucking kidding me, how can it be "normal" pushing shit up in an anus, of somebody else, or the other way around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 12:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvhbgbFttu3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597096 |
On 12/9/2022 11:30 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > whodat wrote: > >>>>>> None of his 22 patents on computer graphics stuff gave him any >>>>>> money. >>>>>> So, the romanian expat is full of hate and embraced relativity AS A >>>>>> RELIGION, like many evangelist do to find a meaning on their lives >>>>>> (plus 10% for the big guy). >>>>> this is so cool. >>>> >>>> https://testpubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-4809169-A >>>> >>>> PATENT SUMMARY Parallel, multiple coprocessor computer architecture >>>> having plural execution modes Patent US-4809169-A Inventor > SFARTI >>>> ADRIAN (US) STRUPAT ACHIM (US) >>>> Assignee ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC (US) >>> >>> sfarti stands for *thirty* in Russian. Maybe it's another guy. >> >> Go to a gay bar already... > > I'm not gay, but about three times gays wanted to fuck me. I suppose I am > a good looking guy. I hate gays. They can't be human beings, pretending > they are "normal". Are you fucking kidding me, how can it be "normal" > pushing shit up in an anus, of somebody else, or the other way around. For someone who claims he's not gay you sure have been cruising around here a lot. Perhaps you're a self-loathing gay unwilling to admit your true nature. With the amount you focus on such topics you sure sound like you haven't addressed your actual self. Psychiatrists are everywhere, seek help from one and come back when you can admit who and what you are. Who knows, true love may be around the corner or right next door, then you won't need Usenet to try to get your rocks off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 18:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <tmvu3g$18bgt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597097 |
whodat wrote: >>> Go to a gay bar already... >> >> I'm not gay, but about three times gays wanted to fuck me. I suppose I >> am a good looking guy. I hate gays. They can't be human beings, >> pretending they are "normal". Are you fucking kidding me, how can it be >> "normal" pushing shit up in an anus, of somebody else, or the other way >> around. > > For someone who claims he's not gay you sure have been cruising around > here a lot. Perhaps you're a self-loathing gay unwilling to admit your not really, but I fuck your mother in she ass, if alive and healthy, in front of you, anytime. I don't think that's gayish. Was it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 13:08 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvhfdgFuehvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597099 |
On 12/9/2022 12:17 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > whodat wrote: > >>>> Go to a gay bar already... >>> >>> I'm not gay, but about three times gays wanted to fuck me. I suppose I >>> am a good looking guy. I hate gays. They can't be human beings, >>> pretending they are "normal". Are you fucking kidding me, how can it be >>> "normal" pushing shit up in an anus, of somebody else, or the other way >>> around. >> >> For someone who claims he's not gay you sure have been cruising around >> here a lot. Perhaps you're a self-loathing gay unwilling to admit your > > not really, but I fuck your mother in she ass, if alive and healthy, in > front of you, anytime. I don't think that's gayish. Was it? Class always tells. Running your mouth while unable to back up your boorish claims is just a poor man's version of a street brawl. Pity is you don't even realize how stupid and boring you are. As I recommended before, find a psychiatrist. You're here trying to redeem your manhood by offering to engage in felony rape and you think that's clever without realizing how very very sick you are. You're in denial, you're clearly gay, and you're crazy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 20:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <be5f9460-7272-483a-9465-d3d8b60d2f18n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597043 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: > ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers... Paying for page charges does not always mean paying for publication in a vanity journal. Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and when I was a grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in page charges. Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a lengthy, expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my papers appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant paying through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as - Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite after nearly 4 decades) - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - Journal of Molecular Biology - Biochemistry - Journal of Biological Chemistry - etc. The only free journals that I published in were basically junk journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques. Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 08:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvg5dpFob9cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597046 |
On 2022-12-09 04:17:36 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers... > > Paying for page charges does not always mean paying for > publication in a vanity journal. > > Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and when I was a > grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in page charges. > Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a lengthy, > expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my papers > appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant paying > through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as > - Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite > after nearly 4 decades) I've never published there, so I don't know if it has/had page charges. > - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences I don't think it has/had page charges > - Journal of Molecular Biology No page charges when I published there (1975-1976) > - Biochemistry Page charges since long ago, but can be waived if you can't pay > - Journal of Biological Chemistry Page charges since long ago, which must be paid > - etc. > The only free journals that I published in were basically junk > journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques. > > Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity > publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work. Yes, but what Richard Hertz knows about academic publishing can be written on the back of a postage stamp. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 10:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <ed783278-bfc6-4eea-a9aa-899a987d1e31n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597052 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:11:57 PM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-12-09 04:17:36 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: > > > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > >> ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers... > > > > Paying for page charges does not always mean paying for > > publication in a vanity journal. > > > > Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and when I was a > > grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in page charges. > > Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a lengthy, > > expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my papers > > appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant paying > > through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as > > - Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite > > after nearly 4 decades) > I've never published there, so I don't know if it has/had page charges. > > - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences > I don't think it has/had page charges > > - Journal of Molecular Biology > No page charges when I published there (1975-1976) > > > - Biochemistry > > Page charges since long ago, but can be waived if you can't pay > > - Journal of Biological Chemistry > Page charges since long ago, which must be paid > > - etc. > > The only free journals that I published in were basically junk > > journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques. > > > > Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity > > publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work. > Yes, but what Richard Hertz knows about academic publishing can be > written on the back of a postage stamp. > > > -- > Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly > in England until 1987. You may include me, Athel Mainly in England, among those ignorant of ways of academic publishing. Let me ask, how much are we talkin' when it comes to page charges these days? Hundreds of pounds sterling? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Are you at liberty to disclose? Apparently prestige has its price in academia as much as anywhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 08:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvipn3F64hfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597098 |
On 2022-12-09 18:06:07 +0000, patdolan said: > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:11:57 PM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-12-09 04:17:36 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:>> > On >> Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:> >> >> >> ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers...> >> > Paying for >> page charges does not always mean paying for> > publication in a vanity >> journal.> >> > Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and >> when I was a> > grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in >> page charges.> > Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a >> lengthy,> > expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my >> papers> > appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant >> paying> > through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as> > - >> Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite> > >> after nearly 4 decades) >> I've never published there, so I don't know if it has/had page charges. >>> - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences >> I don't think it has/had page charges >>> - Journal of Molecular Biology >> No page charges when I published there (1975-1976)>> > - Biochemistry>> >> Page charges since long ago, but can be waived if you can't pay >>> - Journal of Biological Chemistry >> Page charges since long ago, which must be paid >>> - etc.> > The only free journals that I published in were basically >>> junk> > journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques.> >> > >>> Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity> > >>> publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work. >> Yes, but what Richard Hertz knows about academic publishing can be> >> written on the back of a postage stamp.>>> --> Athel -- French and >> British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly> in England until >> 1987. > You may include me, Athel Mainly in England, among those ignorant of > ways of academic publishing. Let me ask, how much are we talkin' when > it comes to page charges these days? Hundreds of pounds sterling? > Thousands? Tens of thousands? Are you at liberty to disclose? > Apparently prestige has its price in academia as much as anywhere else. Nothing secret about it. However, it varies a lot according to the journal, from zero for the journals I've mostly published in (Biochemical Journal, FEBS Journal, Journal of Theoretical Biology ...) to maybe $5000 in others (which, on the whole, I avoid). The whole system has been in a state of flux, however, since Open Access became widespread. As a rough guide, the most expensive are Open Access journals. The others get their income from subscriptions (but libraries that pay subscriptions are a dying breed, and individual subscriptions have died already, except for Science and Nature) from wealthy patrons. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 20:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <1edee10d-86f0-495a-bbb5-a6eead418e26n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597052 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:11:57 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-12-09 04:17:36 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: > > > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > >> ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers... > > > > Paying for page charges does not always mean paying for > > publication in a vanity journal. > > > > Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and when I was a > > grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in page charges. > > Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a lengthy, > > expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my papers > > appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant paying > > through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as > > - Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite > > after nearly 4 decades) > I've never published there, so I don't know if it has/had page charges. > > - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences > I don't think it has/had page charges > > - Journal of Molecular Biology > No page charges when I published there (1975-1976) > > > - Biochemistry > > Page charges since long ago, but can be waived if you can't pay > > - Journal of Biological Chemistry > Page charges since long ago, which must be paid > > - etc. > > The only free journals that I published in were basically junk > > journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques. > > > > Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity > > publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work. > Yes, but what Richard Hertz knows about academic publishing can be > written on the back of a postage stamp. > Thanks for reminding me that my memory is fallible! :-) One thing that I've noticed from a *superficial* search across the internet (correct me if I'm wrong), is that on the basis of constant dollars, page charges nowadays seem to be far less than they used to be. Partly, I would guess (?) is that people are now required to submit their documents and illustrations in electronic format, saving typesetting, photography, etc. Library subscription costs, however, continue to go up on a constant dollar basis. https://www.library.ucsf.edu/about/subscriptions/journals-costs/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20average%20price,many%20years%20of%20similar%20increases. The economics of journal distribution have vastly changed. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0305628101
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 08:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <jvird0F6d45U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597173 |
On 2022-12-10 04:01:14 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:11:57 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2022-12-09 04:17:36 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: >> >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:26:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> >>>> ...or just publish (paying) unfiltered papers... >>> >>> Paying for page charges does not always mean paying for >>> publication in a vanity journal. >>> >>> Back in my day, a good portion of my grant money (and when I was a >>> grad student, my advisor's grant money) was spent in page charges. >>> Top-tier and second-tier journals always go through a lengthy, >>> expensive process of peer review, and the majority of my papers >>> appeared in top-tier and second-tier journals, which meant paying >>> through the nose. My work appeared in such journals as >>> - Cell (which published my lone "famous" paper that people still cite >>> after nearly 4 decades) >> I've never published there, so I don't know if it has/had page charges. >>> - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences >> I don't think it has/had page charges >>> - Journal of Molecular Biology >> No page charges when I published there (1975-1976) >> >>> - Biochemistry >> >> Page charges since long ago, but can be waived if you can't pay >>> - Journal of Biological Chemistry >> Page charges since long ago, which must be paid >>> - etc. >>> The only free journals that I published in were basically junk >>> journals supported by advertising, like Biotechniques. >>> >>> Paying for page charges is not the same as paying for a vanity >>> publication. You pay so that experts can critique your work. >> Yes, but what Richard Hertz knows about academic publishing can be >> written on the back of a postage stamp. >> > > Thanks for reminding me that my memory is fallible! > :-) > One thing that I've noticed from a *superficial* search across > the internet (correct me if I'm wrong), is that on the basis of > constant dollars, page charges nowadays seem to be far less > than they used to be. That's also my impression. My recollection is that in the 1960s the Journal of Biological Chemistry and Biochemistry both charged $150 per page, which seemed to the young me a huge sum. Taking account of inflation that would correspond to at least $2000 per page today. I didn't pay these charges myself; my supervisor did. > Partly, I would guess (?) is that people > are now required to submit their documents and illustrations > in electronic format, saving typesetting, photography, etc. > Library subscription costs, however, continue to go up on > a constant dollar basis. > https://www.library.ucsf.edu/about/subscriptions/journals-costs/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20average%20price,many%20years%20of%20similar%20increases. > > The economics of journal distribution have vastly changed. > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0305628101 -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-11 15:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <86d23c76-0f91-463a-9942-1bcd76e44c13n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597180 |
On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 1:39:16 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2022-12-10 04:01:14 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said: > > Thanks for reminding me that my memory is fallible! > > :-) > > One thing that I've noticed from a *superficial* search across > > the internet (correct me if I'm wrong), is that on the basis of > > constant dollars, page charges nowadays seem to be far less > > than they used to be. > That's also my impression. My recollection is that in the 1960s the > Journal of Biological Chemistry and Biochemistry both charged $150 per > page, which seemed to the young me a huge sum. Taking account of > inflation that would correspond to at least $2000 per page today. I > didn't pay these charges myself; my supervisor did. > > Partly, I would guess (?) is that people > > are now required to submit their documents and illustrations > > in electronic format, saving typesetting, photography, etc. > > Library subscription costs, however, continue to go up on > > a constant dollar basis. > > https://www.library.ucsf.edu/about/subscriptions/journals-costs/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20average%20price,many%20years%20of%20similar%20increases. > > > > The economics of journal distribution have vastly changed. > > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0305628101 Any thoughts on emerging alternative paradigms for peer review? https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2022/12/scientific-publishing-elifes-reviewed-preprints.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 21:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tn04cg$1a322$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597030 |
Den 08.12.2022 23:03, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 3:40:56 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
>
>> Third, the GR gamma is only concerned with increased lengths of geodesics and nowhere accounts for gravitational time dilation--correct me if I am wrong. The spacetime curvature of the solar system is basically Euclidean. The GR effects we measure are due almost entirely to curved time and not curved space. Don't believe me? Then take it from the illustrious PBS with all its credentialed relativity consultants: https://youtu.be/AwhKZ3fd9JA?t=391
>
> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, PAT.
So Richard Hertz still pretends not to know what
the PPN parameter gamma is!
>
> The PPN Gamma factor has been developed as a DIVERSION of the LAME 1915 paper on Mercury, by flooding people's mind with a
> new explanation about Einstein's COMMENT written in the lecture and paper presented on Nov. 18, 1915, to the Prussian Academy
> of Science.
You will of course snip the following without commenting it,
but it will still be true. And there may be lurkers, so here we go.
Let's present a few FACTS.
--------------------------
Irrespective of what you think Einstein has said about
the gravitational deflection of light, it is a FACT that
the General Theory of Relativity [GR] predicts that
the gravitational deflection of light is:
θ = 4GM/c²b
where b is the impact parameter,
(distance of closest approach of the ray's path to the centre of Sun)
What GR predicts is a matter of FACT, and you can find
the derivation in many books and papers by several authors.
However, the deflection observed from the Earth
(or a satellite orbiting Earth) is:
θ = (2GM/c²b)⋅(1+cosφ) (1)
where φ is the solar elongation angle
(angle between the Sun and the source as viewed from Earth).
Examples:
#1:
direction of light from star -> Sun Earth
φ = 0, θ = 4GM/c²R
The light is grazing the Sun, so b = solar radius R
#2: |
direction of light from star V
Sun Earth
φ = π/2, θ = 2GM/c²b
The Earth is in the middle of the bend, so the observed
bending is only half of 4GM/c²b, and the distance to
the Sun is equal to the impact b = 1AU.
#3
Sun Earth <- direction of light from star
φ = π, θ = 0
obviously.
It is a FACT that the Newtonian prediction the gravitational
deflection of light is:
θ = (GM/c²b)⋅(1+cosφ) (2)
When grazing the Sun
φ = 0, θ = 2GM/c²R
In PPM formalism the equation for the gravitational deflection
of light can be written:
θ = ((1+γ)GM/c²b)⋅(1+cosφ) (3)
If you set γ = 0, you get the Newtonian prediction (2)
If you set γ = 1, you get the GR prediction (1)
That's all! The PPN parameter γ has nothing to do
with any other meaning of γ that are used in mathematics.
If you have measured the deflection θ, you can solve
equation (3) with respect to γ.
If γ = 0 or close to 0, then the Newtonian
prediction is in accordance with the measurement,
while the prediction of GR is not.
If γ = 1 or close to 1, then the prediction
of GR is in accordance with the measurement,
while the Newtonian prediction is not.
Here you can see what real measurements show:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
γ = 0.997 ± 0.003
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
γ − 1 = (−1.3 ± 5.2)⋅1e-5
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
γ = 0.99983 ± 0.00045
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
γ = 0.9998 ± 0.0003
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
γ − 1 = (−4.8 ± 5.7)⋅1e-5
The GR prediction is solidly confirmed
and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong.
Richard, don't you think it's silly to keep refuting
what is solidly confirmed by experiments?
--
Paul, loving to rub it in
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 13:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0c7d8e3-2eef-432c-bb75-653b8faf881an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597115 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: <snip> > Paul, loving to rub it in > > https://paulba.no/ Paul, this is DISGUSTING! I'm straight! At any case give Volney a chance. He might like it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 11:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tn1m7i$1klmo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597137 |
Den 09.12.2022 22:41, skrev Richard Hertz: > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > <snip> > >> Paul, loving to rub it in >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > Paul, this is DISGUSTING! Why is this common expression so DISGUSTING? I love to rub in the experimental evidence you hate so much. > > I'm straight! At any case give Volney a chance. He might like it. > Straight as opposed to hunchbacked ? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 15:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <814ab8d6-36a0-493b-ba00-3a86875d718an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597115 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.12.2022 23:03, skrev Richard Hertz:
<snip>
> So Richard Hertz still pretends not to know what the PPN parameter gamma is!
>
> What GR predicts is a matter of FACT, and you can find the derivation in many books and papers by several authors.
>
> However, the deflection observed from the Earth (or a satellite orbiting Earth) is:
>
> θ = (2GM/c²b)⋅(1+cosφ) (1)
>
> where φ is the solar elongation angle (angle between the Sun and the source as viewed from Earth).
<snip bla bla bla>
> The GR prediction is solidly confirmed and the Newtonian prediction is proven wrong.
> Richard, don't you think it's silly to keep refuting what is solidly confirmed by experiments?
> --
> Paul, loving to rub it in (THIS COMMENT SHOULD BE SELF-CENSORED)
>
> https://paulba.no/
Dear Paul, I SEE your funny equation (1), and raise you equation (2):
(2) α = (1 + γ) GM/(c²b) (cos θ₁ - cos θ₀) , which is FAR MORE GENERAL.
Go and find its meaning here:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Deflection under the Gravitational Field of Jupiter—Testing General Relativity
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3821/pdf
Yingjie Li , Ye Xu, JingJing Li, Yuanwei Wu , Shaibo Bian, ZeHao Lin, WenJin Yang, Chaojie Hao, and DeJian Liu
Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, National Time Service Center, Key Laboratory of Precise Positioning and Timing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 6, Germany
Published 2022 January 24
3.2. Theoretical Results
3.2.1. Overview of the Theoretical Computations
Light will bend when it passes through the gravitational field of a massive body, i.e., the massive body acts a gravitational
lens (see the schematic diagram in Figure 3). The total deflection angle, α, under the PPN formalism reads (Cowling 1984;
Will 1993; Ni 2017):
α = (1 + γ) GM/(c²b) (cos θ₁ - cos θ₀)
where θ₀ ≈ 180° if the observed target is a distant CES, b is the impact parameter, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass
of the lens, and c is the light speed. b = r sin β, θ₁ = α + β ≈ β
------------------------------------------------------------------
This equation can be used with Earth-Jupiter, Earth-Sun or Earth-Any know celestial body (that causes YOUR grav. deflection).
1) b = r sin β, where r is the variable distance Earth-Jupiter, and β the angle formed between a segment Earth-Center of Jupiter
and Earth-Surface of Jupiter. So b is the perceived radius of Jupiter, from Earth.
2) Applied to the Earth-Sun "theoretical" deflection, you have b = Rsun, θ₁ = 90° and θ₀ = 180°. The formula (2) reduces to:
(3) α = (1 + γ) GM/(c²Rsun)
3) By making PPN γ = 1, you obtain α = 2GM/(c²Rsun), which is EXACTLY the same formula as the one that Einstein(1915) alleged,
in the Mercury's paper that was the new deflection, which doubled Einstein-von Soldner(1911); 2α/Δ versus α/Δ, as written in
the Nov. 18, 1915 paper.
I KNOW IT HURTS REALLY BAD, RELATIVISTIC PAUL. But Einstein got the DOUBLE of the 1911 value, by making the gravitational
potential Φ(r) = - GMm/(c²r) [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] (PHYSICAL UNITS) to be Φ(Rsun) = 2GMm/(c²Rsun).
How did your pagan god of physics do that? By making B² = m²c²Rsun².
So, IN ORDER TO SAVE FACE denying the above HORROR, relativists used PPN γ instead of the ORIGINAL 1915 B²/(m²c²r²).
Now, read this carefully: I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT OTHER USES OF PPN γ in the linearized GR equations developed as
Post-Newtonian parametric approach (10 main parameters, γ is just the curvature of space), as it was applied to weak grav. fields.
You and Dono accused me of not understanding what the PPN γ parameters is. I accuse you BOTH to try to DEFLECT the attention
about the historical fact that I described, making as many as possible ad-hominem attacks.
Now, you accepted THE WAY that γ is used in the GR formula for starlight deflection by the Sun.
Please, desist with your pathetic attempts to disguise this truth, and GO TO CRY FOUL IN THE CORNER. Dono is waiting you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 16:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Dick Hertz digs himself deeper |
| Message-ID | <e515fce1-dbef-41be-9209-a75e67aa8558n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597143 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:31:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > You and Dono accused me of not understanding what the PPN γ parameters is. Crank, It is pretty obvious that you have no clue. Take your meds and go to bed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web