Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #607821 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-04-19 04:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-05-10 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 199 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 04:05 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-18 22:05 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 13:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-19 10:07 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:14 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-19 19:37 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-19 17:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-20 10:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 01:56 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-19 22:23 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:08 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-20 08:46 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-04-19 17:25 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-29 09:46 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 19:04 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-01 00:04 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:15 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-01 14:29 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:40 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-01 14:44 +1000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-01 00:30 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 13:21 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 06:23 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-19 16:02 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 09:54 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-20 10:50 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 11:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 11:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 14:49 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-19 15:13 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-20 10:56 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 05:57 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 06:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 17:33 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-20 21:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 05:10 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 06:12 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-21 12:29 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 06:20 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 07:08 -0700
Mask falls off the face of hardened crank Amrit Gehan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 02:07 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 00:23 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-21 22:52 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 09:48 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-22 09:17 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 08:15 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-22 12:08 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 12:01 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 11:00 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 17:55 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 18:27 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 19:31 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 22:23 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 23:16 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-23 07:02 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-23 08:40 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-23 14:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 17:24 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-22 15:33 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-24 00:17 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 01:58 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 00:53 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 18:18 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 17:56 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-26 11:11 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-26 08:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-26 13:20 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 19:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-26 21:21 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:29 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-27 23:08 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 13:47 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 07:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 09:29 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 22:09 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 00:37 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 07:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:01 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-27 10:33 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:47 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-30 23:01 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-04 20:50 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-04 16:51 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-06 00:06 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-05 21:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-07 00:51 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 21:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 02:44 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-07 23:48 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 23:22 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-08 20:08 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:37 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-08 22:54 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:45 +0000
Uncle Jane Discusses Science (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-10 00:24 -0500
Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-10 02:11 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:57 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 23:35 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-11 20:16 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-15 00:34 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-14 22:38 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 02:01 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-16 00:57 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 06:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-16 12:57 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-17 22:57 +0000
Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-17 19:20 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:05 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 22:22 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-04 21:24 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 22:36 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 23:26 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-04 23:41 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-06 00:07 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 18:39 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 23:19 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-05 21:56 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 20:04 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 20:03 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-05 19:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-07 00:59 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 21:57 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-08 02:51 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-08 00:02 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-07 20:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-27 20:22 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-27 23:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 07:28 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 07:34 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 16:03 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-28 21:18 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 17:26 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-28 22:31 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-28 18:39 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-24 20:38 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 18:37 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-04-25 17:00 +0300
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 11:56 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 12:01 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 01:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-24 08:36 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-24 13:10 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 10:28 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 02:06 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 11:30 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 02:38 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 13:39 +0200
Railway puzzle (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein) nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 11:49 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 03:11 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 13:39 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-25 05:19 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-25 23:30 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-25 22:12 -0400
Re: Railway puzzle whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 22:23 -0500
Re: Railway puzzle Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-26 18:50 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-27 09:15 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-28 02:53 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-28 10:43 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-28 15:53 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle Evenezer Nigro <veor@rnigeern.ne> - 2023-04-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-07 13:34 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-29 10:55 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-29 21:27 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-29 19:01 -0400
Re: Railway puzzle Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-04-30 11:11 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-04-27 15:20 -0700
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-28 14:18 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-29 14:38 +0200
Re: Railway puzzle nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-26 23:15 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Tommy Africani <ffci@tiacyctm.mo> - 2023-04-26 13:39 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-04-24 12:44 +0300
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-04-24 17:44 +0200
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-24 13:20 -0400
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 12:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 00:31 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-21 17:49 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-21 23:43 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-22 09:42 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 03:30 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-04-22 07:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-24 00:19 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-24 08:37 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-04-25 01:21 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-25 17:41 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-06 18:01 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-06 18:59 -0700
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:33 +0000
Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity. carl eto <ccarleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 14:17 -0700
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-28 16:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb2qhnF5m8vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #608789 |
On 4/28/2023 2:21 AM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:37:56 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote: >>> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for >>>>>>>> ten seconds at the same instant? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show >>>>>>> your math... if you can... >>> >>> >>>>> That question was serious... >>>> >>>> If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a >>>> need to keep proving it. >>>> >>>>> so I will apparently have to provide an answer. >>>> >>>> Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have >>>> proof how far you've run off the rails. >>>> >>>>> There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface >>>>> rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity. >>>> >>>> The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic >>>> predictions are strictly local and completely dependent on the local >>>> structure differing around the globe. >> >>> Vehicles are well spread throughout the world. >> >> What does distribution of vehicles have to do with anything when their >> total mass is too small to have the effect you predict? >> >> >>> The Earth's crust is pretty thin. >> >> Here again you're throwing things at the ceiling to see what sticks. >> >> Hint: None of your claims have enough merit to stick. >> >>>> But the entire scenario is strictly science fiction anyway, so there's >>>> no need for further discussion. >>> >>> You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total >>> mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of, >>> say, >>> the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved? >>> I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind >>> of thing physicists are supposed to do. >> >> 1) Do your own work. >> >> 2) Why do you think that "the top 20 kms" have to do with the statements >> you've made? > > Obviously you people have know knowledge of geology. There are great > stresses in many structures of the earth's surface. A minor tremor could > easily cause a massive earthquake and often does. Once again you're proposing some world-wide catechism when the underlying facts point to purely localized consequences if any will result at all. The very fact that earth tides can and do occur (reading between the lines of your postings demonstrates you are conversant with that) should have been enough info for you to realize the loose coupling in the earth's crust prevents accumulations of forces that by your own description are distributed over the surface of the earth. This, indeed, is the reason you find that a broad distribution of simultaneously accelerating vehicles would need to be widely disbursed. Any direction you turn there is a display of the myriad of reasons precluding the sorts of consequences that your science fiction scenario affords. Make your choice, science or science fiction, you can't have both and continue posting here. >>> That is quite irrelevant. >> >> Show your work to substantiate your position. >> >> >>>> You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics, >>>> and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank >>>> stuff. >>>> >>>> Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your >>>> meds that are clearly failing you. >>> >>> You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my >>> point. >> >> See my other reply for details on this. > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-27 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab009999-5711-43c2-b239-793ce2d7deb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608607 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:21:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>> What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten >>>> seconds at the same instant? > Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's > skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing? That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress forward. Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so no effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global warming. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-28 02:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1759f7c68efe5487$14$406094$4bd3c1de@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608692 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:33:09 -0700, RichD wrote: > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:21:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>> What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten >>>>> seconds at the same instant? >> Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's >> skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing? > > That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March > all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress > forward. > Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so no > effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global > warming. No that doesn't work...but there is a way. Make the soldiers run from front to back, dive into the water then swim back to the front....then repeat.... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-28 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db954eb7-78eb-488e-8129-13885928cda4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608745 |
On April 27, Jane wrote: >>>>> What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten >>>>> seconds at the same instant? >>> Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's >>> skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing? > >> That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March >> all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress forward. >> Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so >> no effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global >> warming. > > No that doesn't work...but there is a way. Make the soldiers run from > front to back, dive into the water then swim back to the front....then repeat.... You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to stand up in the middle. A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-28 16:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb2t8aF5m8vU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #608872 |
On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote: [...] > You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to > stand up in the middle. > > A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, > and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the creation of the foods he eats. Get real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-30 23:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175adbc57a522bc2$2$565070$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608910 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote: > > [...] > >> You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to >> stand up in the middle. >> >> A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, >> and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. > > Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts > methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And it > gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the > creation of the foods he eats. Get real. Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to Egypt...? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-30 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kb8rshF4vcsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609217 |
On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to >>> stand up in the middle. >>> >>> A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, >>> and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. >> >> Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts >> methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And it >> gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the >> creation of the foods he eats. Get real. > > Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to > Egypt...? Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms? Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea vents compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics. You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide no foundation for any of it. Keep going the way you are and the net effect is to sound more and more like the run of the mill crank we find in the technical groups in Usenet. You're free, of course, to post as you wish, but you've been sucked into the lowest forms in your discussions with Dono. The same thing happened to me trying to best Banerjee in sci.physics, so I do sympathize. In the end I broke that off as it became clear those discussions had become entirely pointless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-04 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175c0bdbf3c63689$1$223354$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #609250 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to >>>> stand up in the middle. >>>> >>>> A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, >>>> and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. >>> >>> Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts >>> methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And >>> it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the >>> creation of the foods he eats. Get real. >> >> Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to >> Egypt...? > > Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually > studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms? Gawd! this bloke actually thought I was serious! > Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding > efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded > critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other > creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while > depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea vents > compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics. Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists. > You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post > anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed > here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but even > there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide no > foundation for any of it. Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-04 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kbinmlFl19oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609618 |
On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to >>>>> stand up in the middle. >>>>> >>>>> A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, >>>>> and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts >>>> methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And >>>> it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the >>>> creation of the foods he eats. Get real. >>> >>> Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to >>> Egypt...? >> >> Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually >> studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms? > > Gawd! this bloke actually thought I was serious! > >> Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding >> efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded >> critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other >> creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while >> depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea vents >> compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics. > > Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists. That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error in the search for truth. We don't have an accurate record regarding how many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is, consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a bifurcation that doesn't actually exist. >> You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post >> anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed >> here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but even >> there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide no >> foundation for any of it. > > Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be > offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church. I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world) called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available option as anything. If you are who I think you are, we had a FTF discussion when we met about a certain British scientist and how I disagreed with him. I am no crank, instead I am what I consider to be a searcher seeking answers nobody has been able to, so far, satisfactorily answer. I keep hoping that will change, but I'm running out of time. To varying degrees, we all are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-06 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175c652b0db33a28$5$588642$c7d34dd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #609629 |
On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists. > > That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by > scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as > a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same > applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error > in the search for truth. Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's relativism has never been shown to be wrong. >We don't have an accurate record regarding how > many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone > the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is > only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the > universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and > whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is, > consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I > appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a > bifurcation that doesn't actually exist. > >>> You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post >>> anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed >>> here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but >>> even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide >>> no foundation for any of it. >> >> Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would >> be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian >> church. > > I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since > the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on > the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world) > called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just > another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the > saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much > evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence > would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the > inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is > simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the > existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect, > most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well > as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling > back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available > option as anything. You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself is that I actually know what i am talking about and state the facts. I have actually provided strong hints regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's fifty yo 'refutation' of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving mirror experiment. I am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has the intelligence to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they exist. > If you are who I think you are, I am not. End of story....you must have known my uncle John.... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-05 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kbltqjF5eglU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609776 |
On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>> >>> Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists. >> >> That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by >> scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as >> a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same >> applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error >> in the search for truth. > > Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's > relativism has never been shown to be wrong. > >> We don't have an accurate record regarding how >> many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone >> the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is >> only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the >> universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and >> whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is, >> consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I >> appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a >> bifurcation that doesn't actually exist. >> >>>> You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post >>>> anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed >>>> here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but >>>> even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide >>>> no foundation for any of it. >>> >>> Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would >>> be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian >>> church. >> >> I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since >> the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on >> the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world) >> called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just >> another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the >> saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much >> evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence >> would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the >> inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is >> simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the >> existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect, >> most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well >> as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling >> back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available >> option as anything. > > You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a self > educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding by readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the nym I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable participants in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and trollish aspects of your postings. I'm not distracted from the critical point I made that human behavior is as much a part of "nature" as everything ordinarily associated by scientists when using that term. Lashing out, as you do here, will not solve the difficulties you create for yourself. All you've done here is an attempt to substitute emotion for rational discussion. Simple observation should have been enough for you to realize that does not work as intended when used as you have here. > is that I actually > know what i am talking about and state the facts. You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on being scary. > I have actually provided strong hints The very first problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth with a forked tongue. In the same paragraph you proclaim that you "state the facts" and in the very next breath counter your own proclamation with having "provided strong hints." Same paragraph, from one sentence to the very next you are unable to maintain a level of consistency that is essential to being taken seriously. > regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's > fifty yo 'refutation' of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving > mirror experiment. I am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has > the intelligence to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they > exist. If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. This is not a new form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of discussion several times over the years regarding several posters, so don't feel in any way special on account of this observation. You're behaving just as the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several decades. >> If you are who I think you are, > I am not. End of story....you must have known my uncle John.... No comment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-07 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175cb62f4924057a$3$2230647$fd385da@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #609795 |
On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:54:04 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> >> Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's >> relativism has never been shown to be wrong. >>> sort of evidence would that be? With all the inconsistencies that >>> exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other >>> supporting work is simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka >>> moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears >>> and so is, I suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of >>> it, the errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it >>> ends up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the art" but that is >>> as much of an available option as anything. >> >> You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a >> self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself > > I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding by > readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the nym > I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of > personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're > defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable participants > in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and trollish aspects of > your postings. What kind of hy[pocritical fool are you? All you can do is refer to my major revelations as 'crankish'. This is important stuff you know. Any real scientist would immediately check what I have pointed out and no doubt find the errors in both experiments. You are obviously just part of the conspiracy that has managed to prop up Einstein for 120 years. All you can do is insult decent physicists. > I'm not distracted from the critical point I made that human behavior is > as much a part of "nature" as everything ordinarily associated by > scientists when using that term. Lashing out, as you do here, will not > solve the difficulties you create for yourself. All you've done here is > an attempt to substitute emotion for rational discussion. Simple > observation should have been enough for you to realize that does not > work as intended when used as you have here. > >> is that I actually know what i am talking about and state the facts. > > You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on > being scary. Well he must be a bright fellow....and yes...very scary for Einstein worshippers. >> I have actually provided strong hints > > The very first problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth > with a forked tongue. In the same paragraph you proclaim that you "state > the facts" and in the very next breath counter your own proclamation > with having "provided strong hints." Same paragraph, from one sentence > to the very next you are unable to maintain a level of consistency that > is essential to being taken seriously. I have stated the facts about blatant errors in two of the most vital experiments in the Einstein worshipper's armour. I have given enough hints for those errors to be identified by any genuine physicist. >> regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's fifty yo 'refutation' >> of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving mirror experiment. I am >> now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has the intelligence to >> also find the mistakes and openly accept that they exist. > > If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social > games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper > stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should know that. >This is not a new > form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of discussion several > times over the years regarding several posters, so don't feel in any way > special on account of this observation. You're behaving just as the > classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several decades. I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-06 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kboi7vFhthdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609904 |
On 5/6/2023 7:51 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:54:04 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>> > >>> Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's >>> relativism has never been shown to be wrong. > >>>> sort of evidence would that be? With all the inconsistencies that >>>> exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other >>>> supporting work is simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka >>>> moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears >>>> and so is, I suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of >>>> it, the errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it >>>> ends up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the art" but that is >>>> as much of an available option as anything. >>> >>> You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a >>> self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself >> >> I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding by >> readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the nym >> I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of >> personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're >> defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable participants >> in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and trollish aspects of >> your postings. > > What kind of hy[pocritical fool are you? All you can do is refer to my > major revelations as 'crankish'. "Revelations" is a biblical word! And so it is in your case as well. You have claimed there are errors in Einstein's work(s) but you haven't stated what they, according to you, might be. Your revelations are indeed biblical in nature, a promise without a resolution. > This is important stuff you know. If it/they are actually important then why haven't you said what they are instead of playing social games with them. Where's the beef? > Any > real scientist would immediately check what I have pointed out and no > doubt find the errors in both experiments. You've pointed out nothing. You've hinted at where errors might be with the purpose of having others find them. If you have something real to say then you should say it rather than hint and hope that someone else will do such work for you. > You are obviously just part of> > the conspiracy that has managed to prop up Einstein for 120 years. All > you can do is insult decent physicists. Here we have it then. Arindam Banerjee has the whole world in a conspiracy against him just as you are now claiming here. Sorry for your mental illness, a reality you have now led all the readers of this NG to fully appreciate. I'm actually sorry that you don't present the world with any advance in science. >> I'm not distracted from the critical point I made that human behavior is >> as much a part of "nature" as everything ordinarily associated by >> scientists when using that term. Lashing out, as you do here, will not >> solve the difficulties you create for yourself. All you've done here is >> an attempt to substitute emotion for rational discussion. Simple >> observation should have been enough for you to realize that does not >> work as intended when used as you have here. >> >>> is that I actually know what i am talking about and state the facts. >> >> You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on >> being scary. > > Well he must be a bright fellow....and yes...very scary for Einstein > worshippers. My disdain of Einstein worshipers has the same teeth as Einstein haters. Bring me something that topples relativity and I'll gladly consider the arguments and help with their acceptance if there is any relevance involved. So far all you've provided is some suggestions with no detail. Where's the beef, Jane? >>> I have actually provided strong hints >> >> The very first problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth >> with a forked tongue. In the same paragraph you proclaim that you "state >> the facts" and in the very next breath counter your own proclamation >> with having "provided strong hints." Same paragraph, from one sentence >> to the very next you are unable to maintain a level of consistency that >> is essential to being taken seriously. > > I have stated the facts about blatant errors in two of the most vital > experiments in the Einstein worshipper's armour. I have given enough > hints for those errors to be identified by any genuine physicist. The only truth in the paragraph above is that you've given some hints. Where's the beef? >>> regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's fifty yo 'refutation' >>> of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving mirror experiment. I am >>> now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has the intelligence to >>> also find the mistakes and openly accept that they exist. >> >> If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social >> games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper >> stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. > > No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should know > that. No. The entire premise guiding peer reviewed journals is to provide some safeguards against publishing nonsense. All you've presented so far is nonsense. You should know better. >> This is not a new >> form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of discussion several >> times over the years regarding several posters, so don't feel in any way >> special on account of this observation. You're behaving just as the >> classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several decades. > > I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. Then why are you wasting time with the gambits you're involved with here. I look forward to reading what amounts to a press release about such adventures in the near future. I encourage you to provide progress to science and human understanding. Personally I accept Einstein's work because that's what we have. When we have something better I'll accept and embrace that. You go, girl!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-08 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175d0af2ea2fbd13$51$565070$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #609931 |
On Sat, 06 May 2023 21:54:47 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/6/2023 7:51 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:54:04 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's >>>> relativism has never been shown to be wrong. >> >>>>> sort of evidence would that be? With all the inconsistencies that >>>>> exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and >>>>> other supporting work is simply not enough. I think it needs another >>>>> Eureka moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm >>>>> all ears and so is, I suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show >>>>> me all of it, the errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very >>>>> surprised if it ends up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the >>>>> art" but that is as much of an available option as anything. >>>> >>>> You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a >>>> self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself >>> >>> I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding >>> by readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the >>> nym I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of >>> personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're >>> defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable >>> participants in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and >>> trollish aspects of your postings. >> >>> You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on >>> being scary. >> >> Well he must be a bright fellow....and yes...very scary for Einstein >> worshippers. > > My disdain of Einstein worshipers has the same teeth as Einstein haters. > > Bring me something that topples relativity and I'll gladly consider the > arguments and help with their acceptance if there is any relevance > involved. So far all you've provided is some suggestions with no detail. > > Where's the beef, Jane? > The only truth in the paragraph above is that you've given some hints. > > Where's the beef? I'm actually doing a study on the average IQ of an Einstein worshipper. I'm not sure if you qualify because the only person you seem to worship is yourself. >>>> regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's fifty yo 'refutation' >>>> of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving mirror experiment. I >>>> am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has the intelligence >>>> to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they exist. >>> >>> If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social >>> games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper >>> stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. >> >> No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should know >> that. > > No. The entire premise guiding peer reviewed journals is to provide some > safeguards against publishing nonsense. All you've presented so far is > nonsense. You should know better. Science would naturally appear like nonsense to a non scientist. >>> This is not a new form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of >>> discussion several times over the years regarding several posters, so >>> don't feel in any way special on account of this observation. You're >>> behaving just as the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several >>> decades. >> >> I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. > > Then why are you wasting time with the gambits you're involved with > here. I enjoy the laughs...and being continually reassured that I am far superior to any Einstein worshipper. I look forward to reading what amounts to a press release about > such adventures in the near future. I encourage you to provide progress > to science and human understanding. Personally I accept Einstein's work > because that's what we have. When we have something better I'll accept > and embrace that. You go, girl! We already have something a lot better. Newtonian Mechanics. It has never failed. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-07 23:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kbrd8vFpahU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610038 |
On 5/7/2023 9:44 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 06 May 2023 21:54:47 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/6/2023 7:51 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:54:04 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's >>>>> relativism has never been shown to be wrong. >>> >>>>>> sort of evidence would that be? With all the inconsistencies that >>>>>> exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and >>>>>> other supporting work is simply not enough. I think it needs another >>>>>> Eureka moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm >>>>>> all ears and so is, I suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show >>>>>> me all of it, the errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very >>>>>> surprised if it ends up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the >>>>>> art" but that is as much of an available option as anything. >>>>> >>>>> You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a >>>>> self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself >>>> >>>> I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding >>>> by readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the >>>> nym I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of >>>> personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're >>>> defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable >>>> participants in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and >>>> trollish aspects of your postings. >>> > >>>> You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on >>>> being scary. >>> >>> Well he must be a bright fellow....and yes...very scary for Einstein >>> worshippers. >> >> My disdain of Einstein worshipers has the same teeth as Einstein haters. >> >> Bring me something that topples relativity and I'll gladly consider the >> arguments and help with their acceptance if there is any relevance >> involved. So far all you've provided is some suggestions with no detail. >> >> Where's the beef, Jane? > >> The only truth in the paragraph above is that you've given some hints. >> >> Where's the beef? > I'm actually doing a study on the average IQ of an Einstein worshipper. > I'm not sure if you qualify because the only person you seem to worship > is yourself. Trolling much lately? Blatant insults like that only serve to tell about you. Too bad, really, sometimes you appear to have something worthwhile to offer, but this approach kills it. Individuals who rely on such nonsense don't have anything worthwhile to offer so they fall on their own sword as you just did. The folks in kibology look at this approach with disfavor. You and banerjee have more than narcissism in common, you're both at the very bottom of the hierarchy. >>>>> regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's fifty yo 'refutation' >>>>> of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving mirror experiment. I >>>>> am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has the intelligence >>>>> to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they exist. >>>> >>>> If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social >>>> games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper >>>> stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. >>> >>> No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should know >>> that. >> >> No. The entire premise guiding peer reviewed journals is to provide some >> safeguards against publishing nonsense. All you've presented so far is >> nonsense. You should know better. > > Science would naturally appear like nonsense to a non scientist. You keep harping on that topic as though you had a handle on something bad. You are *NOT* a scientist, Jane, so stop trying to fool thee newsgroups. Scientists discuss science without relying on ad hominem attacks you're demonstrating a fondness for. I hate to be party to that. >>>> This is not a new form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of >>>> discussion several times over the years regarding several posters, so >>>> don't feel in any way special on account of this observation. You're >>>> behaving just as the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several >>>> decades. >>> >>> I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. >> >> Then why are you wasting time with the gambits you're involved with >> here. > > I enjoy the laughs...and being continually reassured that I am far > superior to any Einstein worshipper. Once again your narcissism runs rampant over any possibility that underneath it all lives a scientist. Clearly you're a phony, Jane. Senility cannot be helped, but if there's *anything* left you should retire from these discussions. > I look forward to reading what amounts to a press release about >> such adventures in the near future. I encourage you to provide progress >> to science and human understanding. Personally I accept Einstein's work >> because that's what we have. When we have something better I'll accept >> and embrace that. You go, girl! > > We already have something a lot better. Newtonian Mechanics. It has never > failed. Clearly you are not capable of understanding the essentials of modern physics. Hang up your jock strap Jane. You have nothing to protect. Can you stay on topic? I doubt it but give you one more chance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-08 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175d4e831ce79106$18$2249759$1d38bda@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610055 |
On Sun, 07 May 2023 23:48:30 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/7/2023 9:44 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 06 May 2023 21:54:47 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> Where's the beef? > >> I'm actually doing a study on the average IQ of an Einstein worshipper. >> I'm not sure if you qualify because the only person you seem to worship >> is yourself. > > > Trolling much lately? Blatant insults like that only serve to tell about > you. Too bad, really, sometimes you appear to have something worthwhile > to offer, but this approach kills it. Individuals who rely on such > nonsense don't have anything worthwhile to offer so they fall on their > own sword as you just did. But I am only copying what I have been receiving from Einstein worshippers. I tried to talk science but was immediately insulted. Why don't you direct your advice to your your colleagues like Dono instead of a genuine and normally polite scientist like me? >>>> No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should >>>> know that. >>> >>> No. The entire premise guiding peer reviewed journals is to provide >>> some safeguards against publishing nonsense. All you've presented so >>> far is nonsense. You should know better. >> >> Science would naturally appear like nonsense to a non scientist. > > > You keep harping on that topic as though you had a handle on something > bad. You are *NOT* a scientist, Jane, so stop trying to fool thee > newsgroups. Scientists discuss science without relying on ad hominem > attacks you're demonstrating a fondness for. I hate to be party to that. I am apparently an exceptional scientist. I have discovered mistakes in two publications that have been vital in promoting Einstein over Newton. Nobody else in 120 years has noticed them. >>>>> This is not a new form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of >>>>> discussion several times over the years regarding several posters, >>>>> so don't feel in any way special on account of this observation. >>>>> You're behaving just as the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over >>>>> several decades. >>>> >>>> I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. >>> >>> Then why are you wasting time with the gambits you're involved with >>> here. >> >> I enjoy the laughs...and being continually reassured that I am far >> superior to any Einstein worshipper. > > Once again your narcissism runs rampant over any possibility that > underneath it all lives a scientist. Clearly you're a phony, Jane. > Senility cannot be helped, but if there's *anything* left you should > retire from these discussions. No I'm having tooo much fun. You people are so naive. >> I look forward to reading what amounts to a press release about >>> such adventures in the near future. I encourage you to provide >>> progress to science and human understanding. Personally I accept >>> Einstein's work because that's what we have. When we have something >>> better I'll accept and embrace that. You go, girl! >> >> We already have something a lot better. Newtonian Mechanics. It has >> never failed. > > Clearly you are not capable of understanding the essentials of modern > physics. Hang up your jock strap Jane. You have nothing to protect. Modern physics has been going backwards ever since 1905. > Can you stay on topic? I doubt it but give you one more chance. Why don't you say something that contains science rather than religion. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-08 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b7b14d8-592d-4e98-8c09-2b184495494an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #610157 |
On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:24:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > I am apparently an exceptional scientist. I have discovered mistakes in > two publications that have been vital in promoting Einstein over Newton. > Nobody else in 120 years has noticed them. Again I ask the question... "Where do you keep your Nobel prize?" Or, are you just another crank with no clue? I'm fairly confident that readers here know the answer...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-10 04:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175dae43e582e535$32$1853841$53d3d9df@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610172 |
On Mon, 08 May 2023 20:08:09 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:24:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> I am apparently an exceptional scientist. I have discovered mistakes in >> two publications that have been vital in promoting Einstein over >> Newton. >> Nobody else in 120 years has noticed them. > > Again I ask the question... "Where do you keep your Nobel prize?" I would not want one. Only people who plagiarize their assistants' ideas get those. > Or, are you just another crank with no clue? I'm fairly confident that > readers here know the answer... All real scientists are cranks. ...didn't you know that? That is why people like you cannot understand what they say. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-08 22:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kbtuf9FcrchU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610157 |
On 5/8/2023 6:22 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 07 May 2023 23:48:30 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/7/2023 9:44 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Sat, 06 May 2023 21:54:47 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>>> Where's the beef? >> >>> I'm actually doing a study on the average IQ of an Einstein worshipper. >>> I'm not sure if you qualify because the only person you seem to worship >>> is yourself. >> >> >> Trolling much lately? Blatant insults like that only serve to tell about >> you. Too bad, really, sometimes you appear to have something worthwhile >> to offer, but this approach kills it. Individuals who rely on such >> nonsense don't have anything worthwhile to offer so they fall on their >> own sword as you just did. > > But I am only copying what I have been receiving from Einstein > worshippers. Good grief. Didn't you have a parent ever ask you whether you would jump off the empire state building if someone else did and challenged you to follow their example? Nope, I won't blame your parent(s) for your failures as a sentient human being. Nor can you legitimately blame others for your behaviors. > I tried to talk science but was immediately insulted. That's not how this happened. I was here watching all of it. > Why don't you direct your advice to your your colleagues like Dono > instead of a genuine and normally polite scientist like me? I am "whodat" and I have no colleagues here. All you've done with me is to provide unwarranted insults while I, at least early on, was supportive of you. And here you are now classifying me with no basis in fact. So that leaves me with the only available current option to believe tat you are demented, whether age related or otherwise. You are the racer who being in the winning position with no clear reason stops just short of the finish line. >>>>> No journal is allowed publish anything anti Einstein,..you should >>>>> know that. >>>> >>>> No. The entire premise guiding peer reviewed journals is to provide >>>> some safeguards against publishing nonsense. All you've presented so >>>> far is nonsense. You should know better. >>> >>> Science would naturally appear like nonsense to a non scientist. >> >> >> You keep harping on that topic as though you had a handle on something >> bad. You are *NOT* a scientist, Jane, so stop trying to fool thee >> newsgroups. Scientists discuss science without relying on ad hominem >> attacks you're demonstrating a fondness for. I hate to be party to that. > I am apparently an exceptional scientist. I have discovered mistakes in > two publications that have been vital in promoting Einstein over Newton. > Nobody else in 120 years has noticed them. You keep making this claim again and again without providing any substance to your claim. Haven't you ever heard the adage, "Publish or Perish?" Of course you have, yet here you are perishing and blaming others for your failure(s). >>>>>> This is not a new form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of >>>>>> discussion several times over the years regarding several posters, >>>>>> so don't feel in any way special on account of this observation. >>>>>> You're behaving just as the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over >>>>>> several decades. >>>>> >>>>> I have my own plans for publishing these facts... and a lot more. >>>> >>>> Then why are you wasting time with the gambits you're involved with >>>> here. >>> >>> I enjoy the laughs...and being continually reassured that I am far >>> superior to any Einstein worshipper. >> >> Once again your narcissism runs rampant over any possibility that >> underneath it all lives a scientist. Clearly you're a phony, Jane. >> Senility cannot be helped, but if there's *anything* left you should >> retire from these discussions. > > No I'm having tooo much fun. You people are so naive. Another sure sign of mental illness. So sad. >>> I look forward to reading what amounts to a press release about >>>> such adventures in the near future. I encourage you to provide >>>> progress to science and human understanding. Personally I accept >>>> Einstein's work because that's what we have. When we have something >>>> better I'll accept and embrace that. You go, girl! >>> >>> We already have something a lot better. Newtonian Mechanics. It has >>> never failed. >> >> Clearly you are not capable of understanding the essentials of modern >> physics. Hang up your jock strap Jane. You have nothing to protect. > > Modern physics has been going backwards ever since 1905. I neither agree nor disagree. The moment has arrived and passed for me to say put up or shut up. >> Can you stay on topic? I doubt it but give you one more chance. > Why don't you say something that contains science rather than religion. Because here I am presently dealing with a religious fruitcake, you. Prove me wrong by providing substance to your claims for a change. The problem is you cannot. He who can does, he who cannot teaches. You've been here for a short while trying to teach and you can't even get that right. E=IR Current is relative to voltage and circuit resistance. Most of science is about relativity in one form or another. Show me a valid equation that represents otherwise. Let the fun begin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-10 04:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175daeb9623f978c$134$1853841$53d3d9df@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610176 |
On Mon, 08 May 2023 22:54:15 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/8/2023 6:22 PM, Jane wrote: >>>>> Where's the beef? >>> >>>> I'm actually doing a study on the average IQ of an Einstein >>>> worshipper. >>>> I'm not sure if you qualify because the only person you seem to >>>> worship is yourself. Individuals who rely >>> on such nonsense don't have anything worthwhile to offer so they fall >>> on their own sword as you just did. >> >> But I am only copying what I have been receiving from Einstein >> worshippers. > > Good grief. Didn't you have a parent ever ask you whether you would jump >> >> I tried to talk science but was immediately insulted. > > That's not how this happened. I was here watching all of it. >>> physics. Hang up your jock strap Jane. You have nothing to protect. >> >> Modern physics has been going backwards ever since 1905. > > > I neither agree nor disagree. The moment has arrived and passed for me > to say put up or shut up. > > >>> Can you stay on topic? I doubt it but give you one more chance. > >> Why don't you say something that contains science rather than religion. > > Because here I am presently dealing with a religious fruitcake, you. > Prove me wrong by providing substance to your claims for a change. > > The problem is you cannot. He who can does, he who cannot teaches. > You've been here for a short while trying to teach and you can't even > get that right. > > E=IR Current is relative to voltage and circuit resistance. Most of > science is about relativity in one form or another. Show me a valid > equation that represents otherwise. Let the fun begin. Has anyone ever told you that you are a very boring individual. It takes you about fifty times as many words to say something as it would a normal person....and then it is nonsense anyway If you have a wife, tell her I feel very sorry for her. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web