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 241 — 23 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.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 07:23 +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> - 2023-05-19 08:28 -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> - 2023-05-20 21:05 +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> - 2023-05-20 17:59 -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: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 21:32 +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> - 2023-05-20 18:10 -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> - 2023-05-23 02:52 +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> - 2023-05-23 10:05 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 09:27 -0700
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> - 2023-05-24 00:58 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 19:16 -0700
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> - 2023-05-26 02:35 +0000
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> - 2023-05-24 00:54 +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> - 2023-05-23 21:20 -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> - 2023-05-25 23:35 +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> - 2023-05-25 19:50 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-24 12:57 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-24 11:44 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 09:18 +0200
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-25 13:45 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 20:02 +0200
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Ridge Schwarzenberg <szrr@sdirgwah.gs> - 2023-05-25 18:13 +0000
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> - 2023-05-25 23:49 +0000
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> - 2023-05-25 23:45 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-20 16:15 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:35 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-21 13:47 -0700
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> - 2023-05-23 02:05 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-22 20:11 -0700
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> - 2023-05-23 06:23 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:02 -0700
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> - 2023-05-23 06:25 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-05-21 13:53 -0700
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> - 2023-05-31 21:22 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 22:09 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-01 10:59 -0700
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> - 2023-06-02 00:17 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 10:00 -0700
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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-10 00:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Uncle Jane Discusses Science (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kc0o46Fq5qaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610273 |
On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Jane wrote: > 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. No. In fact I was always the fair haired boy. In your case your former employer has removed you from the ranks. They tell me you're a solitary example and formally deny any former association. Unofficially they have a lot to say. But you know all that. When I mentioned your name to a former colleague he just shook his head and turned away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-10 02:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kc0ud1Fr4jmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610273 |
On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Jane wrote: > On Mon, 08 May 2023 22:54:15 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/8/2023 6:22 PM, Jane wrote: >>> Why don't you say something that contains science rather than religion. I did so below, per your request. >> 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. So then you come along and dodge the underlying issue that relativity, in some form or another, has relevance at every level of science. As I wrote above: "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." So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to provide a legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish thesis. Put up or shut up, or are to trying to earn a stupid cow award? You're doing splendidly in that regard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-10 23:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <175ded915f43ec38$362$1290337$45d3cfde@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610296 |
On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Jane wrote: > So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to provide a > legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish thesis. > > Put up or shut up, or are to trying to earn a stupid cow award? You're > doing splendidly in that regard. ...verym very boring -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-11 14:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kc4sllFf27jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610350 |
On 5/10/2023 6:57 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: >> On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: The challenge you edited out because it is too difficult for you: "As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely define your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no scientist. But like a madwoman you do give good screech." >> So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to provide a >> legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish thesis. So you will not provide the definition for the term "frequency" because to do so would undermine your entire crank gambit. I had thought you to be intelligent, but I was wrong. Like several others I've encountered in the past you display your gift to memorize facts without actually understanding them. So I challenged you: >> Put up or shut up, or are to trying to earn a stupid cow award? You're >> doing splendidly in that regard. To which you provided the following attempted insult as an escape: > ...verym very boring Replying to you is a waste of time. Demonstrating what a loser you've become is not. If raging as you have been gives some sort of satisfaction then have at it, just remember that *all* the readers here, competents and cranks alike, see through you. I wear the "whodat bores Uncle Jane" badge with honor. Thanks! That stupid cow award is now clearly within your reach. Have you ever achieved any sort of award in the past? I'll bet this is a first for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-11 23:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <175e3af71ae9c8d2$66$565070$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610416 |
On Thu, 11 May 2023 14:06:24 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/10/2023 6:57 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>> On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: > > The challenge you edited out because it is too difficult for you: > > "As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely define > your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no scientist. > But like a madwoman you do give good screech." ...more boring than ever... >>> So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to provide >>> a legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish thesis. > > So you will not provide the definition for the term "frequency" because > to do so would undermine your entire crank gambit. I had thought you to > be intelligent, but I was wrong. Like several others I've encountered in > the past you display your gift to memorize facts without actually > understanding them. > > So I challenged you: > >>> Put up or shut up, or are to trying to earn a stupid cow award? You're >>> doing splendidly in that regard. > > To which you provided the following attempted insult as an escape: > >> ...very very boring > > Replying to you is a waste of time. Demonstrating what a loser you've > become is not. If raging as you have been gives some sort of > satisfaction then have at it, just remember that *all* the readers here, > competents and cranks alike, see through you. I wear the "whodat bores > Uncle Jane" badge with honor. Thanks! > > That stupid cow award is now clearly within your reach. Well when I get it I will hand it over to you, where it belongs. You cannot even understand the significance of my experiment at all...so I will give you a clue. If the golf balls were light wavelengths, what would their frequency be? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-11 20:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kc5ibqFi4g3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610440 |
On 5/11/2023 6:35 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2023 14:06:24 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/10/2023 6:57 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>>> On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >> >> The challenge you edited out because it is too difficult for you: >> >> "As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely define >> your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no scientist. >> But like a madwoman you do give good screech." > > ...more boring than ever... No answer because precisely defining the terms destroys your thesis. >>>> So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to provide >>>> a legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish thesis. >> >> So you will not provide the definition for the term "frequency" because >> to do so would undermine your entire crank gambit. I had thought you to >> be intelligent, but I was wrong. Like several others I've encountered in >> the past you display your gift to memorize facts without actually >> understanding them. >> >> So I challenged you: >> >>>> Put up or shut up, or are to trying to earn a stupid cow award? You're >>>> doing splendidly in that regard. >> >> To which you provided the following attempted insult as an escape: >> >>> ...very very boring >> >> Replying to you is a waste of time. Demonstrating what a loser you've >> become is not. If raging as you have been gives some sort of >> satisfaction then have at it, just remember that *all* the readers here, >> competents and cranks alike, see through you. I wear the "whodat bores >> Uncle Jane" badge with honor. Thanks! >> >> That stupid cow award is now clearly within your reach. > > Well when I get it I will hand it over to you, where it belongs. You remind me of two kids arguing. "You're stupid and ugly." "No! You're stupid and ugly." Grammar school stuff, the only thing you're really good at. > You cannot even understand the significance of my experiment at all...so > I will give you a clue. It isn't an "experiment." You're attempting to create an example and it cannot work because you don't define the terms. By obfuscating the "experiment" you hope to win a point. I've been here long enough to understand your trollish ways. You're once again attempting to do a comparison and comparisons are about how things relate to one another. > If the golf balls were light wavelengths, what would their frequency be? If you defined what you mean by "frequency"... perhaps then there might be some relevance in this discussion. How stupid are you? You refuse to define "frequency" for the purposes of your question but you demand an answer anyway when what you have provided in your example is a "repetition rate." Then you try to interject "wavelength" where it isn't appropriate. Are you attempting to equate one golf ball, or later 1 arrow, for the length of 1 complete wave in a sequence. You are confused by the simplest things. https://www.rp-photonics.com/pulse_repetition_rate.html Figure out what the complete question ought to be then come back and ask it in some sane form.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-15 00:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <175f29eb61209059$5$944188$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610455 |
On Thu, 11 May 2023 20:16:36 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/11/2023 6:35 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 11 May 2023 14:06:24 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 5/10/2023 6:57 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>>> On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >>> >>> The challenge you edited out because it is too difficult for you: >>> >>> "As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely >>> define your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no >>> scientist. But like a madwoman you do give good screech." >> >> ...more boring than ever... > > > No answer because precisely defining the terms destroys your thesis. > > >>>>> So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to >>>>> provide a legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish >>>>> thesis. >>> >>> So you will not provide the definition for the term "frequency" >>> because to do so would undermine your entire crank gambit. I had >>> thought you to be intelligent, but I was wrong. Like several others >>> I've encountered in the past you display your gift to memorize facts >>> without actually understanding them. >>> >>> So I challenged you: >> You cannot even understand the significance of my experiment at >> all...so I will give you a clue. > > > It isn't an "experiment." You're attempting to create an example and it > cannot work because you don't define the terms. By obfuscating the > "experiment" you hope to win a point. I've been here long enough to > understand your trollish ways. You're once again attempting to do a > comparison and comparisons are about how things relate to one another. > > >> If the golf balls were light wavelengths, what would their frequency >> be? > > If you defined what you mean by "frequency"... perhaps then there might > be some relevance in this discussion. Gawd! You and a million other people talk constantly about hhe 'frequency of light'. Surely you all know what that means. > How stupid are you? You refuse to define "frequency" for the purposes of > your question but you demand an answer anyway when what you have > provided in your example is a "repetition rate." Then you try to > interject "wavelength" where it isn't appropriate. > > Are you attempting to equate one golf ball, or later 1 arrow, for the > length of 1 complete wave in a sequence. You are confused by the > simplest things. > > https://www.rp-photonics.com/pulse_repetition_rate.html > > Figure out what the complete question ought to be then come back and ask > it in some sane form. OK I will redefine the experiment yet again. If continuous light wavelengths leave a source at a rate of 1 every nanosecond, what is their frequency? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-14 22:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kcdnp7FplvjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610802 |
On 5/14/2023 7:34 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2023 20:16:36 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/11/2023 6:35 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 14:06:24 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/10/2023 6:57 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 02:11:26 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On 5/9/2023 11:45 PM, Uncle Jane wrote: >>>> >>>> The challenge you edited out because it is too difficult for you: >>>> >>>> "As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely >>>> define your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no >>>> scientist. But like a madwoman you do give good screech." >>> >>> ...more boring than ever... >> >> >> No answer because precisely defining the terms destroys your thesis. >> >> >>>>>> So you dodged the question by introducing bullshit because to >>>>>> provide a legitimate reply would undermine your present crankish >>>>>> thesis. >>>> >>>> So you will not provide the definition for the term "frequency" >>>> because to do so would undermine your entire crank gambit. I had >>>> thought you to be intelligent, but I was wrong. Like several others >>>> I've encountered in the past you display your gift to memorize facts >>>> without actually understanding them. >>>> >>>> So I challenged you: > >>> You cannot even understand the significance of my experiment at >>> all...so I will give you a clue. >> >> >> It isn't an "experiment." You're attempting to create an example and it >> cannot work because you don't define the terms. By obfuscating the >> "experiment" you hope to win a point. I've been here long enough to >> understand your trollish ways. You're once again attempting to do a >> comparison and comparisons are about how things relate to one another. >> >> >>> If the golf balls were light wavelengths, what would their frequency >>> be? >> >> If you defined what you mean by "frequency"... perhaps then there might >> be some relevance in this discussion. > > Gawd! You and a million other people talk constantly about hhe 'frequency > of light'. Surely you all know what that means. > >> How stupid are you? You refuse to define "frequency" for the purposes of >> your question but you demand an answer anyway when what you have >> provided in your example is a "repetition rate." Then you try to >> interject "wavelength" where it isn't appropriate. >> >> Are you attempting to equate one golf ball, or later 1 arrow, for the >> length of 1 complete wave in a sequence. You are confused by the >> simplest things. >> >> https://www.rp-photonics.com/pulse_repetition_rate.html >> >> Figure out what the complete question ought to be then come back and ask >> it in some sane form. > > OK I will redefine the experiment yet again. > If continuous light wavelengths leave a source at a rate of 1 every > nanosecond, what is their frequency? You posed a question that has impossible conditions. What, pray tell, is a "continuous light wavelength?" If it is continuous how can it leave at a rate of 1 every nanosecond. To leave at a rate it must be discontinuous. It sounds like a minor variation on the arrow problem you posed earlier. As asked, gobbledygook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-16 02:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <175f7d40b5ed82f8$177$2806839$fd385da@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610815 |
On Sun, 14 May 2023 22:38:14 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> Figure out what the complete question ought to be then come back and >>> ask it in some sane form. >> >> OK I will redefine the experiment yet again. >> If continuous light wavelengths leave a source at a rate of 1 every >> nanosecond, what is their frequency? > > You posed a question that has impossible conditions. What, pray tell, is > a "continuous light wavelength?" If it is continuous how can it leave at > a rate of 1 every nanosecond. To leave at a rate it must be > discontinuous. It sounds like a minor variation on the arrow problem you > posed earlier. Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light signal. > As asked, gobbledygook. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-16 00:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kcgkb9F91sbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610891 |
On 5/15/2023 9:01 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2023 22:38:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > > >>>> Figure out what the complete question ought to be then come back and >>>> ask it in some sane form. >>> >>> OK I will redefine the experiment yet again. >>> If continuous light wavelengths leave a source at a rate of 1 every >>> nanosecond, what is their frequency? >> >> You posed a question that has impossible conditions. What, pray tell, is >> a "continuous light wavelength?" If it is continuous how can it leave at >> a rate of 1 every nanosecond. To leave at a rate it must be >> discontinuous. It sounds like a minor variation on the arrow problem you >> posed earlier. > > Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. > "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" > IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light > signal. > >> As asked, gobbledygook. Best to let this sleeping dog lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-16 06:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <175f8bfd81293500$3$955234$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610915 |
On Tue, 16 May 2023 00:57:59 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. >> "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" >> IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light >> signal. >> >>> As asked, gobbledygook. > > Best to let this sleeping dog lie. Don't want to admit to your error eh? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-16 12:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kchugdFetq2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610917 |
On 5/16/2023 1:31 AM, Jane wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2023 00:57:59 -0500, whodat wrote: > >>> >>> Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. >>> "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" >>> IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light >>> signal. >>> >>>> As asked, gobbledygook. >> >> Best to let this sleeping dog lie. > > Don't want to admit to your error eh? What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite multiple requests by several readers that you do so. As such, you are in an untenable position. I've seen the bun you've been offering and there is no beef.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-17 22:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <17601057735ca9af$1$1244942$4dd3c7de@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610946 |
On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:57:30 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/16/2023 1:31 AM, Jane wrote: >> On Tue, 16 May 2023 00:57:59 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> >>>> Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. >>>> "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" >>>> IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light >>>> signal. >>>> >>>>> As asked, gobbledygook. >>> >>> Best to let this sleeping dog lie. >> >> Don't want to admit to your error eh? > > What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite > multiple requests by several readers that you do so. > > As such, you are in an untenable position. I've seen the bun you've been > offering and there is no beef. I don't think you know enough physics to be chatting on this NG. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-17 19:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kcl9aiF5j9aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611024 |
On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:57:30 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/16/2023 1:31 AM, Jane wrote: >>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 00:57:59 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself. >>>>> "continuous light wavelengths" is not "continuous light wavelength" >>>>> IT obviously refers to a continuous, coherent, monochromatic light >>>>> signal. >>>>> >>>>>> As asked, gobbledygook. >>>> >>>> Best to let this sleeping dog lie. >>> >>> Don't want to admit to your error eh? >> >> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite >> multiple requests by several readers that you do so. >> >> As such, you are in an untenable position. I've seen the bun you've been >> offering and there is no beef. > > I don't think you know enough physics to be chatting on this NG. Read the charter. You've just stepped into poo again. The only question is whether or not it is your own. Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts. The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that you don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to bluff your way through. Clearly what *I* know of physics is not the real(tm) issue here. You come on the scene explaining facts about sine waves but you are unable to explain *WHAT* they are made of. Then you evade by attacking. I am willing to admit I don't know what the sine wave you've been discussing is made of. Since you have refused to answer that question it is abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know either but continue to make believe that the "facts" you've lectured this newsgroup about are somehow relevant to being something more than a partial model but those "facts" are not predictive of anything (the real(tm) basis for science.) In reality, nobody knows what those sine waves are made of but then nobody with actual physics knowledge cares because they recognize sine waves are a partial model for things like radar and broadcast radio waves (and for that matter cell phone originated waves as well. (Not an all inclusive list.)) So from that standpoint I already know more about physics than you do. Failure to recognize your limitations is the worse sort of failure that exists. The more you interact here the more obvious it becomes that you are at least in mid stage dementia. Dear Jane, that is not an attack but a statement of fact. One of the signals of dementia is personality change. I assure you that you're quite different today from the person you were in the past, and not changed for the better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 01:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <176067c6175cb4d9$20$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611029 |
On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:20:30 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/17/2023 5:57 PM, Jane wrote: >>> What error? You have failed repeatedly to define your terms despite > > Thanks for providing the explanation for your difficulties in this > newsgroup. You provide a lot of opinion and precious few facts. > The reason you don't provide realistic replies to questions is that you > don't have the answers but in the meantime you keep trying to bluff your > way through. Garbage. I'm about the only person here who states any facts. > Clearly what *I* know of physics is not the real(tm) issue here. You > come on the scene explaining facts about sine waves but you are unable > to explain *WHAT* they are made of. Then you evade by attacking. It does not matter what they are made of, dopey. The TWE is a general equation that refers to ANY traveling sine wave....like the one I told you to draw on paper and move it across the screen. > I am willing to admit I don't know what the sine wave you've been > discussing is made of. It does not matter what it is 'made of'. This why it is so frustrating to try to educate a non physicist. > Since you have refused to answer that question it > is abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know either but continue > to make believe that the "facts" you've lectured this newsgroup about > are somehow relevant to being something more than a partial model but > those "facts" are not predictive of anything (the real(tm) basis for > science.) In reality, nobody knows what those sine waves are made of but > then nobody with actual physics knowledge cares because they recognize > sine waves are a partial model for things like radar and broadcast radio > waves (and for that matter cell phone originated waves as well. (Not an > all inclusive list.)) Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue. > -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-18 21:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kco6vqFjo1mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611091 |
On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote: <snip many nothings> > Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue. It has to be at least 20 years since anyone was stupid enough to use that particular complaint in these sci newsgroups. That tells the readers all that is (im)pertinent about you. Well not quite, the dementia discussion you culled is probably the decisive factor. Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to as EM waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend your failures through yet another personal attack (you've probably forgotten the term ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that discussion, which is "what is predicted by your theories regarding sine waves?" I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have nothing else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter for this newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes you thunk, even for an instant, that your purpose here is as a teacher of some sort? Heck, you are incapable of answering the really easy questions and ideally a teacher can do that and much more. Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because nature grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of material on that topic, if you're interested in your short term future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 07:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <17607a88c4ca1150$1$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611096 |
On Thu, 18 May 2023 21:59:01 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/18/2023 8:39 PM, Jane wrote: > > <snip many nothings> > >> Stop criticising your superiors. You haven't a clue. > > It has to be at least 20 years since anyone was stupid enough to use > that particular complaint in these sci newsgroups. MY UNCLE NO DOUBT...AND I can see now that HE WAS JUSTIFIED... > Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to as EM > waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend your failures > through yet another personal attack (you've probably forgotten the term > ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that discussion, which is "what > is predicted by your theories regarding sine waves?" Nothing is predicted by me. I am merely stating pure physics and correcting the mistakes of relativist idiots. Light does NOT have an intrinsic frequency yet about 90% of support for Einstein relies on it having one. The beam of a light clock does not become vertical in a moving frame. If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a course in physics. > I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have nothing > else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter for this > newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes you thunk, even for > an instant, that your purpose here is as a teacher of some sort? Heck, > you are incapable of answering the really easy questions and ideally a > teacher can do that and much more. It is no concern of mine if others prefer to remain ignorant...but I'm quite happy to give them a free education if they want to learn. > Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent > discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because nature > grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of material on > that topic, if you're interested in your short term future. It seems that the only tactic Einstein supporters now have left is ridiculing those who know the real facts...Sorry. You only make fools of yourselves. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 08:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kcpbroFp5ujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611117 |
On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 21:59:01 -0500, whodat wrote: >> Of course the material aspects of what are generally referred to as EM >> waves is important and crucial. In your haste to defend your failures >> through yet another personal attack (you've probably forgotten the term >> ad hominem) you've ignored the crux of that discussion, which is "what >> is predicted by your theories regarding sine waves?" > Nothing is predicted by me. That's right for a change. I'm glad you admit it. The entire purpose of physics is to be able to predict nature's behavior. The theory of sine waves you promote does not achieve that. So this, standing alone as you have introduced it, is a failure. > I am merely stating pure physics and > correcting the mistakes of relativist idiots. Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity? Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in the information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting has no test available to validate it. > Light does NOT have an > intrinsic frequency yet about 90% of support for Einstein relies on it > having one. So what you're saying here is that every theory accepted in physics must be 100% correct? That's such a mouthful that isn't the truth that you claim to love. Physics theories have a validity that is limited by range. That's been acknowledged for a very long time. > The beam of a light clock does not become vertical in a > moving frame. If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a course in > physics. Must everyone be interested in every aspect of physics? Boy, you sure do have a lot of rules that most of earth's population doesn't give a whit about. I don't care about a "light clock" but don't criticize you for having that as an interest. >> I await your next evasive maneuver because it appears you have nothing >> else to contribute. Did you bother to read the charter for this >> newsgroup? As this is a discussion group what makes you thunk, even for >> an instant, that your purpose here is as a teacher of some sort? Heck, >> you are incapable of answering the really easy questions and ideally a >> teacher can do that and much more. > It is no concern of mine if others prefer to remain ignorant...but I'm > quite happy to give them a free education if they want to learn. Just what is the normal distribution of knowledge among humans? And who made you the purveyor of all *important* knowledge? Once again, read the charter for this newsgroup preferably before you spout off again crowning yourself royalty in the field of physics. All I've ever claimed in this newsgroup is that I have some very very good questions while admitting I have no answers. It is clear that your stick ball culture coupled with your dementia stands in the way of engaging in rational conversation. >> Sigh. Sorry you've lost whatever ability you once had for cogent >> discourse. You'll eventually have to face the facts because nature >> grants you no choice in the matter. You tube has a lot of material on >> that topic, if you're interested in your short term future. > It seems that the only tactic Einstein supporters now have left is > ridiculing those who know the real facts...Sorry. You only make fools of > yourselves. Firstly, painting "Einstein supporters" with that wide brush is not a legitimate basis for discussion. But of course you're not here to discuss, you're here to lecture the way narcissists tend to. AND: "If you have a family member with narcissistic personality disorder, you’re familiar with the erratic, toxic, and abusive behaviors the disorder can cause. As the person ages, you might wonder whether their behavior will improve or worsen. One particularly big concern for families of narcissists is Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia can dramatically change someone’s personality as the cognitive decline progresses. In people with narcissism, Alzheimer’s disease can create some unique challenges." I urge you to learn how to conduct civilized discourse. <https://bluemoonseniorcounseling.com/alzheimers-disease-and-the-aging-narcissist/> "And so it goes."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 21:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <1760f600346a54b6$262$972675$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611133 |
On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:28:18 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote: >> I am merely stating pure physics and correcting the mistakes of >> relativist idiots. > > Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity? > > Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in the > information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting has no test > available to validate it. The biggest hole is inside your head. snip crap -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 17:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane's Dementia (was Re: Uncle Jane dodges the issues (was Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.) |
| Message-ID | <kct1lvFdippU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611253 |
On 5/20/2023 4:05 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:28:18 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/19/2023 2:23 AM, Jane wrote: > >>> I am merely stating pure physics and correcting the mistakes of >>> relativist idiots. >> >> Then why pick on me? Have I said anything to promote relativity? >> >> Oh, BTW, "stating pure physics" does not rely on leaving holes in the >> information that invalidate it. What you have been promoting has no test >> available to validate it. > > The biggest hole is inside your head. > > snip crap Reversion to juvenile antics is another signal of dementia. Thanks for another demonstration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web