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 202 — 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: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 01:39 +0000
Re: 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> - 2023-05-18 21:59 -0500
Re: 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> - 2023-05-18 22:14 -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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-29 14:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Railway puzzle |
| Message-ID | <1q9yd52.5a8itct6fkkvN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #608526 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 9:12 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 4/25/2023 5:30 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:39:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 11:49:32 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains
> >>>>>>>>> toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph
> >>>>>>>>> compared to a train toward the north pole.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember
> >>>>>>>>> that he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or
> >>>>>>>>> south, the same rail wore more than the other.
> >>>>>> [Science Quizz stuff]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Somewhere in this world there is a stretch
> >>>>>> of straight high speed railway line that is perfectly levelled.
> >>>>>> (WRT to the geoid of course)
> >>>>>> So the weight is equally divided over the left and right wheels,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Doesn't it depend on - how a train is loaded?
> >>>> Symmetrical, as implied above.
> >>>>>> It is two way railway line, with separate tracks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now trains start moving on it.
> >>>>>> Someone says that Coriolis forces will push moving trains to one
> >>>>>> side,
> >>>>>> and that therefore the rails will wear unequally,
> >>>>>> independently of which way the trains are going.
> >>>>>> Is this true?
> >>>>> Do you mean - independently of whether a train
> >>>>> goes from the equator to a pole or oppositely?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>>> Choose from:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A) No, there will be no unequal wear,
> >>>>>> because Coriolis forces don't really exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> B) Yes, there will be unequal wear,
> >>>>>> and it will be on the same side on both of the tracks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C) Yes, there will be unequal wear,
> >>>>>> and it will be on the opposite sides of the tracks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And next:
> >>>>>> Is it the same for east-west and north-south railways?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the wind?
> >>>> Neglected,
> >>>
> >>> Don't think so. Assuming too much and neglecting
> >>> too much is a professional sickness of physicists.
> >>> For a N-S railroad in the trade wind zone I would
> >>> expect the east side of rail to be worn more.
> >>> And the Coriolis effect would be indeed responsible
> >>> for that Did I pass your "exercise"?
> >>
> >> Sorry, No,
> >>
> >
> > I found something.
> >
> > The Wikipedia article on the Coriolis Force has an entire section
> > involving an east-west train on the equator.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Intuitive_example
> >
> > Summary: An eastbound train has the Coriolis force pointing away from
> > the axis of rotation, or up, making the eastbound train lighter than the
> > stopped train. For the westbound train moving against the earth's
> > rotation, the Coriolis force is downward, and would make a westbound
> > train appear heavier.
> >
> > For a high speed object, this becomes the Eötvös effect, which causes a
> > westbound projectile to be deflected downward and an eastbound
> > projectile upward, when compared to the expected ballistic path ignoring
> > rotation.
> >
> > ("Eötvös" conjures other thoughts about Uncle Al, his idée fixe about
> > asymmetries had "Eötvös" in its name)
>
> Uncle Al's as well as any other idealistic discussion about rails and
> trains neglects the overwhelming irregularities attendant to the
> operation of trains on standard railway tracks.
Yes, of course, but that is as silly as saying
that Einstein's theory of relativity must be nonsense
because accurate clocks didn't exist in those days.
Just assume the rails leveled to better than 10^-5 accuracy.
> There's nothing as valuable to such discussions as watching trains
> operate at various speeds. Almost as valuable is riding some trains.
There is a nice discussion of the stability in Feynman, somewhere.
> I'd wager that most of the participants here have never ridden a train
> let alone ridden enough trains to get a reasonable sampling of what
> actually happens.
Yes, isn't it funny?
Here we have a forum with some of the best armchair physicists
in the world.
Never done an experiment, or worked any real physics textbook,
but quite sure that all real physicists do everything wrong,
ever since Einstein came along.
Then a simple, pre-Einstein, undergraduate level excercise
happens to come up, nothing but Coriolis forces involved,
and the result is complete silence,
(apart from some blatant nonsense)
Jan
So OK, a hint, it is really like understanding a Foucault pendulum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-26 23:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Railway puzzle |
| Message-ID | <1q9sejh.vkd7qp1fcgyf7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #608514 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 5:30 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 13:39:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 11:49:32 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains
> >>>>>>>> toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph
> >>>>>>>> compared to a train toward the north pole.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember
> >>>>>>>> that he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or
> >>>>>>>> south, the same rail wore more than the other.
> >>>>> [Science Quizz stuff]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Somewhere in this world there is a stretch
> >>>>> of straight high speed railway line that is perfectly levelled.
> >>>>> (WRT to the geoid of course)
> >>>>> So the weight is equally divided over the left and right wheels,
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't it depend on - how a train is loaded?
> >>> Symmetrical, as implied above.
> >>>>> It is two way railway line, with separate tracks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now trains start moving on it.
> >>>>> Someone says that Coriolis forces will push moving trains to one side,
> >>>>> and that therefore the rails will wear unequally,
> >>>>> independently of which way the trains are going.
> >>>>> Is this true?
> >>>> Do you mean - independently of whether a train
> >>>> goes from the equator to a pole or oppositely?
> >>> Yes.
> >>>>> Choose from:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A) No, there will be no unequal wear,
> >>>>> because Coriolis forces don't really exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> B) Yes, there will be unequal wear,
> >>>>> and it will be on the same side on both of the tracks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> C) Yes, there will be unequal wear,
> >>>>> and it will be on the opposite sides of the tracks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And next:
> >>>>> Is it the same for east-west and north-south railways?
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the wind?
> >>> Neglected,
> >>
> >> Don't think so. Assuming too much and neglecting
> >> too much is a professional sickness of physicists.
> >> For a N-S railroad in the trade wind zone I would
> >> expect the east side of rail to be worn more.
> >> And the Coriolis effect would be indeed responsible
> >> for that Did I pass your "exercise"?
> >
> > Sorry, No,
> >
>
> I found something.
>
> The Wikipedia article on the Coriolis Force has an entire section
> involving an east-west train on the equator.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Intuitive_example
Yes, that's a trivial one. (and the only trivial one)
Wikipedia could have done better.
> Summary: An eastbound train has the Coriolis force pointing away from the
> axis of rotation, or up, making the eastbound train lighter than the
> stopped train. For the westbound train moving against the earth's
> rotation, the Coriolis force is downward, and would make a westbound train
> appear heavier.
>
> For a high speed object, this becomes the Eötvös effect, which causes a
> westbound projectile to be deflected downward and an eastbound projectile
> upward, when compared to the expected ballistic path ignoring rotation.
>
> ("Eötvös" conjures other thoughts about Uncle Al, his idée fixe about
> asymmetries had "Eötvös" in its name)
This is the reason for launching satellites toward the East,
as explained in corotating coordinates.
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tommy Africani <ffci@tiacyctm.mo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-26 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u2b9i7$1d780$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608338 |
Volney wrote: >> Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than >> the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as >> yours. > > I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the > equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train > toward the north pole. you have to make a seat and put it inside the shithouse you made back in your garden, and you are ready to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-24 12:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u25j2c$9ot5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608123 |
On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said: > Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it > will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of > wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from > the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun. In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds. In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons. This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before. Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down. Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of Sun's helim flash. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-24 17:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1q9p3ki.xmnk92zwj116N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #608313 |
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said: > > > Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it > > will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of > > wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from > > the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun. > > In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds. > In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons. > This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before. But nothing out of the ordinary. The rotation rate of the Earth has always been fluctuating. > Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down. > Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of > Sun's helim flash. It is really quite impossible to accurately estimate this, for it will depend on the distribution of the land masses in the far future. The present relatively rapid spin-down is not representative for geological history as a whole. Save rotation! Continents Unite! Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-24 13:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u26dol$duj2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608334 |
On 4/24/2023 11:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said: >> >>> Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it >>> will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of >>> wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from >>> the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun. >> >> In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds. >> In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons. >> This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before. > > But nothing out of the ordinary. > The rotation rate of the Earth has always been fluctuating. > >> Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down. >> Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of >> Sun's helim flash. > > It is really quite impossible to accurately estimate this, > for it will depend on the distribution of the land masses > in the far future. > The present relatively rapid spin-down is not representative > for geological history as a whole. > > Save rotation! Continents Unite! I've read somewhere* that the sensitivity measuring earth's rotation period over a period of a year is enough that they can detect snowpack in the northern hemisphere as well as when trees leaf out/lose leaves in the northern hemisphere. (both effects have mass further from earth's rotational axis and are greater than the same in the southern hemisphere) (*) I often hear/remember trivia/facts but not the source, so don't ask me for proof/evidence. I may or may not be correct. Google may be helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-21 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5dba83b-6c3f-4220-a461-4d98d036304dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607821 |
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. > > That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a > moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, > (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ > Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > explain why when people here have studied it. > I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the > same error. > > > > > > -- > -- lover of truth Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-22 00:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17581a654f950b8b$2$270558$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608109 |
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an >> >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >> explain why when people here have studied it. >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The >> experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's >> SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to >> disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from >> the same error. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- lover of truth > Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up > SR. SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-21 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <032c7e1c-27fb-4400-affa-6b4c8b9b34edn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608124 |
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > > >> > >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > >> explain why when people here have studied it. > >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > >> experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > >> SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > >> disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from > >> the same error. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- lover of truth > > > Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up > > SR. > SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from > differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated > as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a > way that would create observer speed irrelevant. > -- > -- lover of truth An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-21 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbd260be-6d68-4d39-960c-a750ca014d2cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608126 |
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > > > >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > > > > >> > > >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > > >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > > >> explain why when people here have studied it. > > >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > > >> experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > > >> SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > > >> disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > > >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from > > >> the same error. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- lover of truth > > > > > Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up > > > SR. > > SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from > > differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated > > as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a > > way that would create observer speed irrelevant. > > -- > > -- lover of truth > An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the source. I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about an universe-centric frame? How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at xU, yU, zU?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-22 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1758387233fd49c1$1$406094$4bd3c1de@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608150 |
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen > wrote: >> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> > >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > >> > >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, >> > >> performed an >> > >> > >> > >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to >> > >> refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's >> > >> SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it. >> > >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. >> > >> The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up >> > >> Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have >> > >> the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was >> > >> blatantly obvious. >> > >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer >> > >> from the same error. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- lover of truth >> > >> > > Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping >> > > up SR. >> > SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from >> > differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is >> > stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not >> > operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant. >> > -- >> > -- lover of truth >> An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether >> wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The >> absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the >> source. The MMX was a test for any kind of absoluteness. It was intended to maesure the Earth's speed in a supposed absolute frame. > I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' > frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a > 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about > an universe-centric frame? The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical observations. > How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as > slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with > velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at > xU, yU, zU? Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-22 03:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e165f99e-61f8-4e0e-80ca-f9edfdb589d4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608152 |
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen > > wrote: > >> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> > > >> > >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, >.. > > How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as > > slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with > > velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at > > xU, yU, zU? > Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. > -- > -- lover of truth Are you saying the concept of absolute motion never made sense even in a geocentric system?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-22 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <811ff35c-1e94-4391-b373-d6e525c74759n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608152 |
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen > > wrote: > >> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> > > >> > >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, > >> > >> performed an > >> > > >> > > >> > >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to > >> > >> refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's > >> > >> SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it. > >> > >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. > >> > >> The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up > >> > >> Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have > >> > >> the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was > >> > >> blatantly obvious. > >> > >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer > >> > >> from the same error. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- lover of truth > >> > > >> > > Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping > >> > > up SR. > >> > SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from > >> > differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is > >> > stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not > >> > operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant. > >> > -- > >> > -- lover of truth > >> An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether > >> wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The > >> absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the > >> source. > The MMX was a test for any kind of absoluteness. It was intended to maesure > the Earth's speed in a supposed absolute frame. > > I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' > > frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a > > 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about > > an universe-centric frame? > The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical > observations. > > How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as > > slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with > > velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at > > xU, yU, zU? > Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. > -- Kookfight
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-24 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1758b6ec97fae8d9$1$746483$4dd3c7de@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608166 |
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:01:02 -0700, Dono. wrote: > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical >> observations. >> > How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as >> > slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating >> > with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal >> > frame at xU, yU, zU? >> Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. >> -- > Kookfight Moron moans -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-24 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kanf04Fd3tmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #608289 |
On 4/23/2023 7:19 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:01:02 -0700, Dono. wrote: > >> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical >>> observations. >>>> How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as >>>> slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating >>>> with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal >>>> frame at xU, yU, zU? >>> Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. >>> -- >> Kookfight > > Moron moans What a great self-descriptive!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-25 01:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175908e06fcf6871$3$3048414$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #608328 |
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:37:06 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical >>>> observations. >>>>> How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as >>>>> slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating >>>>> with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal >>>>> frame at xU, yU, zU? >>>> Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. >>>> -- >>> Kookfight >> >> Moron moans > > What a great self-descriptive! Another moron moans -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-04-25 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kar38rFuc9tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #608391 |
On 4/24/2023 8:21 PM, Jane wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:37:06 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>>> >>>>> The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical >>>>> observations. >>>>>> How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as >>>>>> slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating >>>>>> with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal >>>>>> frame at xU, yU, zU? >>>>> Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind. >>>>> -- >>>> Kookfight >>> >>> Moron moans >> >> What a great self-descriptive! > > Another moron moans ibid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-06 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be30d0a1-d315-49d7-9c66-62ff182509dfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607821 |
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. > > That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a > moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, > (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ > Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > explain why when people here have studied it. > I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the > same error. > > > > > > -- > -- lover of truth May I have your full name in case I don't hear your announcement here of your book publishing so I can search for it myself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-06 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5d36b75-0e2c-49d0-9240-4f4314476e44n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #609906 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:01:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical > > theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert > > Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the > > ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to > > retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument > > and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. > > > > That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an > > experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a > > moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, > > (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ > > Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > > > His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute > > Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will > > explain why when people here have studied it. > > I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The > > experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's > > SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to > > disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. > > Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the > > same error. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- lover of truth > May I have your full name in case I don't hear your announcement here of your book publishing so I can search for it myself? Not going to happen... Jane is just another troll who wants to remain anonymous forever and ever...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-06 22:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kboklvFhthdU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #609906 |
On 5/6/2023 8:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >> Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the >> ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to >> retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument >> and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction. >> >> That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an >> experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a >> moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, >> (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ >> Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light >> >> His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >> explain why when people here have studied it. >> I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The >> experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's >> SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to >> disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the >> same error. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- lover of truth > May I have your full name in case I don't hear your announcement here > of your book publishing so I can search for it myself? Nothing to concern yourself with. It will never happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web