Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382346 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 347 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Cully When <cullywhen@invalid.net> - 2016-04-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 17:15 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:17 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 07:56 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 23:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 14:03 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 15:40 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 14:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-29 20:37 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-30 05:28 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 08:59 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:46 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 10:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 05:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 03:35 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:58 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 21:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 03:45 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:12 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 09:54 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 19:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-03 03:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-11 11:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 06:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-12 08:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 05:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 13:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 08:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 15:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 21:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 09:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-15 20:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-17 01:59 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 02:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 22:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 02:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 10:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 18:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-18 19:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 22:18 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 23:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 03:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-20 08:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 13:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 16:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 19:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 09:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:31 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 03:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 09:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 22:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 17:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 19:52 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-26 06:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-27 12:03 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-30 13:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 04:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 05:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:08 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 00:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-01 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 20:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 05:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 02:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-08 09:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 10:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 18:03 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 16:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 04:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 16:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 06:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 21:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 04:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 13:20 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 09:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 10:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 20:16 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 14:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 15:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 16:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 17:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 17:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 22:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-12 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-13 06:02 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 01:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 04:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 04:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 06:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 19:13 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 21:34 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 13:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:31 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-18 10:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 11:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 16:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 18:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 18:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 20:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 23:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 11:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-15 23:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 00:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 05:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-13 15:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 15:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 10:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 20:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 20:39 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 22:25 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 23:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-09 17:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-01 06:38 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-17 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 03:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-03 13:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 15:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 04:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:06 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 10:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 10:28 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-02 09:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-05 13:27 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 22:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-08 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 03:42 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-08 12:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 12:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 19:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 05:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 08:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-07 15:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:05 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 15:02 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-10 09:10 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-10 09:20 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-11 07:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:15 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 20:01 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 02:50 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 19:48 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 06:53 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 06:41 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:16 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-01 21:52 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 21:12 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 09:54 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:57 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 05:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:49 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:02 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-17 02:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-01 17:35 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:59 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:08 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:26 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:09 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:55 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 19:17 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:08 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:21 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-04-28 17:30 -0400
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-03 07:05 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 18:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 18:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 20:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 16:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 10:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jmqfib1gr9s5c64uml18cmlfdts5j0kt8c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #382642 |
On Mon, 2 May 2016 09:56:38 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 5/1/2016 11:59 AM, HGW wrote: >>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>> >>> Wrong. >> >> He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) > >Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot that >you are. Well one of you must be wrong. He said it was you. Now you are apparently saying he was wrong for saying you were. One can only wonder where this will end.... .....and how does your altercation make me an idiot? >>> PointedEars >>> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 07:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nga500$1lnu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382675 |
On 5/2/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2016 09:56:38 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/1/2016 11:59 AM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >>>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>> >>> He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) >> >> Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot that >> you are. > > Well one of you must be wrong. That's correct. > He said it was you. And he's mistaken, as I showed with follow-ups. Notice that if you had done the same prior to agreeing with him in knee-jerk fashion, you wouldn't have stepped in your own feces quite so quickly. > Now you are apparently > saying he was wrong for saying you were. One can only wonder where this will > end.... > > .....and how does your altercation make me an idiot? Your knee-jerk reaction in support of him -- without checking facts yourself. That's what makes you an idiot. > >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 07:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nga5e7$1lnu$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382696 |
On 5/3/2016 7:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/2/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: >> On Mon, 2 May 2016 09:56:38 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/1/2016 11:59 AM, HGW wrote: >> >>>>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 >>>>>> years, >>>>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>> He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) >>> >>> Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot that >>> you are. >> >> Well one of you must be wrong. > > That's correct. > >> He said it was you. > > And he's mistaken, as I showed with follow-ups. Notice that if you had > done the same prior to agreeing with him in knee-jerk fashion, you > wouldn't have stepped in your own feces quite so quickly. > >> Now you are apparently >> saying he was wrong for saying you were. One can only wonder where >> this will >> end.... >> >> .....and how does your altercation make me an idiot? > > Your knee-jerk reaction in support of him -- without checking facts > yourself. That's what makes you an idiot. Allow me to elaborate that anyone that sits at a computer and makes off-the-top-of-the-head remarks about things he knows nothing about and without checking facts, even when references are provided (because that might involve a modicum of effort), is an idiot. You, Ralph, do this as a past-time. You, Ralph, are an idiot. > >> >>>>> PointedEars >>>>> >>>> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 03:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngamki$r11$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382698 |
On 03/05/16 22:26, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/3/2016 7:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 >>>>>>> years, >>>>>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>>>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. >>>>> >>>>> He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) >>>> >>>> Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot >>>> that >>>> you are. >>> >>> Well one of you must be wrong. >> >> That's correct. >> >>> He said it was you. >> >> And he's mistaken, as I showed with follow-ups. Notice that if you had >> done the same prior to agreeing with him in knee-jerk fashion, you >> wouldn't have stepped in your own feces quite so quickly. >> >>> Now you are apparently >>> saying he was wrong for saying you were. One can only wonder where >>> this will >>> end.... >>> >>> .....and how does your altercation make me an idiot? >> >> Your knee-jerk reaction in support of him -- without checking facts >> yourself. That's what makes you an idiot. > > Allow me to elaborate that anyone that sits at a computer and makes > off-the-top-of-the-head remarks about things he knows nothing about and > without checking facts, even when references are provided (because that > might involve a modicum of effort), is an idiot. > > You, Henry, do this as a past-time. You, Henry, are an idiot. My reference to the fact that you are always wrong did not depend solely on HollowHead's remark. The statement is a generally applicable. >>>>>> PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 13:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngaph3$10f6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382707 |
On 5/3/2016 12:20 PM, HGW wrote: > On 03/05/16 22:26, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/3/2016 7:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 >>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) >>>>> >>>>> Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot >>>>> that >>>>> you are. >>>> >>>> Well one of you must be wrong. >>> >>> That's correct. >>> >>>> He said it was you. >>> >>> And he's mistaken, as I showed with follow-ups. Notice that if you had >>> done the same prior to agreeing with him in knee-jerk fashion, you >>> wouldn't have stepped in your own feces quite so quickly. >>> >>>> Now you are apparently >>>> saying he was wrong for saying you were. One can only wonder where >>>> this will >>>> end.... >>>> >>>> .....and how does your altercation make me an idiot? >>> >>> Your knee-jerk reaction in support of him -- without checking facts >>> yourself. That's what makes you an idiot. >> >> Allow me to elaborate that anyone that sits at a computer and makes >> off-the-top-of-the-head remarks about things he knows nothing about and >> without checking facts, even when references are provided (because that >> might involve a modicum of effort), is an idiot. >> >> You, Henry, do this as a past-time. You, Henry, are an idiot. > > My reference to the fact that you are always wrong did not depend solely > on HollowHead's remark. And yet, I'm not wrong in this case, hence your statement is foolish on its own. Not to mention that you're an idiot for not checking facts before dispensing your off-the-top-of-your-head, zero-effort, zero-value comment. > The statement is a generally applicable. > > >>>>>>> PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 21:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2618198.6NbjEIdyHQ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #382717 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/3/2016 12:20 PM, HGW wrote: >> My reference to the fact that you are always wrong did not depend solely >> on HollowHead's remark. > > And yet, I'm not wrong in this case, hence your statement is foolish on > its own. You are even wrong that you are not wrong in this case :) But that does not mean anything regarding whether you have been wrong before. And you have not always been wrong before. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngavq4$1b97$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382727 |
On 5/3/2016 2:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/3/2016 12:20 PM, HGW wrote: >>> My reference to the fact that you are always wrong did not depend solely >>> on HollowHead's remark. >> >> And yet, I'm not wrong in this case, hence your statement is foolish on >> its own. > > You are even wrong that you are not wrong in this case :) But that does > not mean anything regarding whether you have been wrong before. And you > have not always been wrong before. > Forgive me if your blessing means little to me. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2144776.q0iruyckBJ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #382731 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/3/2016 2:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/3/2016 12:20 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> My reference to the fact that you are always wrong did not depend >>>> solely on HollowHead's remark. >>> And yet, I'm not wrong in this case, hence your statement is foolish on >>> its own. >> You are even wrong that you are not wrong in this case :) But that does >> not mean anything regarding whether you have been wrong before. And you >> have not always been wrong before. > > Forgive me if your blessing means little to me. Rest assured that I do. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng7pnk$1tpd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382585 |
On 5/1/2016 10:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >> 22,000 years is 50%, […] > > Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Probabilistic_nature_of_half-life And if you'd like a number of textbook references as well as the Wiki, then that's certainly doable. > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 19:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1814875.b4WD2GS2zU@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #382641 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/1/2016 10:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >> Wrong. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Probabilistic_nature_of_half-life This resource does not substantiate your claim. Granted, natural language is imprecise; but it is possible with natural language to define “half-life” in a way that is not wrong. The referred article proves that when it says “In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%.” – the key words there being “a” and “within”. > And if you'd like a number of textbook references as well as the Wiki, > then that's certainly doable. They will also not substantiate your claim, simply because your claim is wrong. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngapec$10f6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382706 |
On 5/3/2016 12:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/1/2016 10:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>> Wrong. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Probabilistic_nature_of_half-life > > This resource does not substantiate your claim. Granted, natural language > is imprecise; but it is possible with natural language to define “half-life” > in a way that is not wrong. The referred article proves that when it says > “In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its > half-life is 50%.” – the key words there being “a” and “within”. Here's a shovel. Dig a little deeper. Perhaps you can elaborate in a little more detail some ways where "Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after 22,000 years is 50%" and "In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%" mean two distinctly different things. Perhaps you are having a difficult time parsing the synonomy between "one of the" and "a". Maybe you are having some problems with the fact that if the probability of decaying within a half-life is 50%, then the probability of decaying after the half-life is also 50%. Let me know if you need a bigger shovel. > >> And if you'd like a number of textbook references as well as the Wiki, >> then that's certainly doable. > > They will also not substantiate your claim, simply because your claim is > wrong. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11440447.CKaiDcRxTU@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #382716 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/3/2016 12:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/1/2016 10:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, >>>>> you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after >>>>> 22,000 years is 50%, […] >>>> Wrong. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Probabilistic_nature_of_half-life >> >> This resource does not substantiate your claim. Granted, natural >> language is imprecise; but it is possible with natural language to define >> “half-life” in a way that is not wrong. The referred article proves that >> when it says “In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom >> decaying within its half-life is 50%.” – the key words there being “a” >> and “within”. > > Here's a shovel. Dig a little deeper. I do not understand this idiom, but it is probably not that important. IOW, why don’t you take that shovel and shove it? ;-) > Perhaps you can elaborate in a little more detail some ways where > "Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, > you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after > 22,000 years is 50%" and "In other words, the probability of a > radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%" mean two > distinctly different things. Certainly. Even assuming synonymy of “likelihood” and “probability”, saying that “half-life” means that “the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after [that time] is 50 %” is *wrong*; instead, it means that the probability for *every* *arbitrarily chosen* atom (actually, only its nucleus) *having decayed* *within* that time is 50 %. This follows from the definition of “half-life”: it is the time within which 50 % (one half), or after which more than 50 %, of the original radioactive nuclei of a specimen had (with certainty, i.e. a probability of 100 %) been subject to radioactive decay, and that, although the radioactive decay of individual nuclei cannot be predicted as it is a probabilistic process, *overall* decay can be estimated based on this fact. One can then determine the age of a (partially) radioactive specimen by knowing the half-life of the original radioactive isotope of an element, and comparing the percentage of original atoms found in the specimen against the percentage of the decay products and non-radioactive isotopes of the same element found in the specimen (there are distinct decay paths through which certain isotopes of elements can be produced, which has to do with isotope stability, which has to do with nuclear binding energy). For example, radiocarbon dating (Willard Libby, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1960), can be used to determine the age of a specimen of a carbon-based lifeform based on the assumption that as its life ends, it no longer takes in any carbon, including the radioactive ¹⁴C that is produced in Terra’s atmosphere by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen molecules: n + ¹⁴₇N → ¹⁴₆C + p The intaken carbon-14 is subject to radioactive (β⁻-)decay: ¹⁴₆C → ¹⁴₇N + e⁻ + ν_e It is not renewed by intake, so the ratio of the ¹⁴C and the more common, stable ¹²C in the specimen is decreasing with time. The half-life of ¹⁴C is ca. 5730 years, and given the ratio between ¹⁴C and ¹²C in a specimen, one can do the math. > Perhaps you are having a difficult time parsing the synonomy between > "one of the" and "a". There is no synonomy. Whether one atom of a specimen is decaying after a time, and whether several atoms of a specimen have already decayed, each with equal probability, within a time, are distinctly different facts. Your problem is that you do not understand what half-life is, but that can be remedied by your reading the material that you dare cite to others. F'up2 sci.physics -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e5d96e7-36a6-4020-9fed-795a62a08bdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. The astronomers of 70 to 175 years ago worked with averages because 1) All computations were performed by hand. It was simply not possible for the "computers" of the day (i.e. teams of young women simultaneously working on different parts of an algorithm in a sort of "parallel processing" strategy, double-checking each others' work) to perform the sorts of massive computations that are routine today. 2) The quality of the data and the size of the available data sets did not match that available currently. 3) Approximation methods were necessary to make complex calculations tractable. The most important approximation method for computing precession was Gauss's ring approximation, which substituted for a perturbing planet a ring of material, denser in some parts, lighter in others to account for the varying speed of the planet in its orbit. 4) From year to year, there will be large and highly predictable deviations in the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury from the average measured value of 5.3 arcseconds per year. Over the course of a century the sum of all of these yearly advancements will equal something close to a highly PREDICTABLE value of 531 arcseconds per century. 5) The characteristic time scale for the onset of chaos in Mercury's orbit is on the order of millions of years. Over periods of mere centuries, the motions of Mercury are utterly predictable. It is no longer necessary for astronomers to work with averages when studying Mercury's orbital behavior. 6) Currently, electronic computers enable us to dispense with approximate calculation methods, and interplanetary probes such as Messenger have enabled nearly continuous monitoring of Mercury's orbit to an accuracy of several meters over a period of several years. 7) Currently, we do not focus simply on the advancement of the perihelion. Instead, we examine the totality of Mercury's orbit. We have the ability now to dispense with Gauss's approximation and to compute directly the complex variations in each individual orbit. 8) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic" and certainly does not equate to "unpredictable". Your understanding of chaos theory is defective. 9) When all of the complex Newtonian and non-Newtonian deviations of Mercury's orbit from a Keplerian ellipse are accounted for, Einstein's General Relativity is discovered to have been fully validated. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008 10) I did my first calculation of an asteroid's orbit on the basis of three timed observations in 1968 when I was a teenager. My team photographed the asteroid on glass plates, identified the asteroid against the background stars with the aid of a blink comparator and large Palomar Sky Survey prints, measured its position with a Gaertner measuring engine, and chugged the data on a Bendix G 15 vacuum tube computer with a 2,176 word memory, magnetic drum, and paper tape input. What experience do *you* claim with celestial mechanics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 19:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nfsme6$pd4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382376 |
On 28/04/16 12:28, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's >> AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each >> cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular >> instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. > > The astronomers of 70 to 175 years ago worked with averages because > > 1) All computations were performed by hand. It was simply not possible for the > "computers" of the day (i.e. teams of young women simultaneously working on > different parts of an algorithm in a sort of "parallel processing" strategy, > double-checking each others' work) to perform the sorts of massive > computations that are routine today. > 2) The quality of the data and the size of the available data sets did not > match that available currently. > 3) Approximation methods were necessary to make complex calculations tractable. > The most important approximation method for computing precession was Gauss's > ring approximation, which substituted for a perturbing planet a ring of > material, denser in some parts, lighter in others to account for the varying > speed of the planet in its orbit. > 4) From year to year, there will be large and highly predictable deviations in > the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury from the average measured value > of 5.3 arcseconds per year. Over the course of a century the sum of all of > these yearly advancements will equal something close to a highly PREDICTABLE > value of 531 arcseconds per century. > 5) The characteristic time scale for the onset of chaos in Mercury's orbit is > on the order of millions of years. Over periods of mere centuries, the > motions of Mercury are utterly predictable. Absolute crap! You don't need all that nonsense. Just use Einstein's world shattering equation and you will have the answer -:). > > It is no longer necessary for astronomers to work with averages when studying > Mercury's orbital behavior. > > 6) Currently, electronic computers enable us to dispense with approximate > calculation methods, and interplanetary probes such as Messenger have > enabled nearly continuous monitoring of Mercury's orbit to an accuracy of > several meters over a period of several years. I suppose you assumed that its light moved at c. Did the aether cause that? > 7) Currently, we do not focus simply on the advancement of the perihelion. Who is this 'we'? > Instead, we examine the totality of Mercury's orbit. We have the ability now > to dispense with Gauss's approximation and to compute directly the complex > variations in each individual orbit. > 8) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic" and certainly does not equate to > "unpredictable". Your understanding of chaos theory is defective. > 9) When all of the complex Newtonian and non-Newtonian deviations of Mercury's > orbit from a Keplerian ellipse are accounted for, Einstein's General > Relativity is discovered to have been fully validated. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 > http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 > https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 > http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 > http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008 > > 10) I did my first calculation of an asteroid's orbit on the basis of three > timed observations in 1968 when I was a teenager. My team photographed the > asteroid on glass plates, identified the asteroid against the background > stars with the aid of a blink comparator and large Palomar Sky Survey > prints, measured its position with a Gaertner measuring engine, and chugged > the data on a Bendix G 15 vacuum tube computer with a 2,176 word memory, > magnetic drum, and paper tape input. What experience do *you* claim with > celestial mechanics? My word you are an impressive fellow...a 'team' when only a teenager! .....all prokaryotes too I assume... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <410aa051-fc63-4791-b8ba-0fae2f697854@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382385 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:51:05 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 28/04/16 12:28, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > >> AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > >> cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > >> instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. > > > > The astronomers of 70 to 175 years ago worked with averages because > > > > 1) All computations were performed by hand. It was simply not possible for the > > "computers" of the day (i.e. teams of young women simultaneously working on > > different parts of an algorithm in a sort of "parallel processing" strategy, > > double-checking each others' work) to perform the sorts of massive > > computations that are routine today. > > 2) The quality of the data and the size of the available data sets did not > > match that available currently. > > 3) Approximation methods were necessary to make complex calculations tractable. > > The most important approximation method for computing precession was Gauss's > > ring approximation, which substituted for a perturbing planet a ring of > > material, denser in some parts, lighter in others to account for the varying > > speed of the planet in its orbit. > > 4) From year to year, there will be large and highly predictable deviations in > > the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury from the average measured value > > of 5.3 arcseconds per year. Over the course of a century the sum of all of > > these yearly advancements will equal something close to a highly PREDICTABLE > > value of 531 arcseconds per century. > > 5) The characteristic time scale for the onset of chaos in Mercury's orbit is > > on the order of millions of years. Over periods of mere centuries, the > > motions of Mercury are utterly predictable. > > Absolute crap! You display absolutely no understanding of simple Newtonian mechanics. How can you hope to critique relativity? > You don't need all that nonsense. Just use Einstein's world shattering > equation and you will have the answer -:). > > > > > It is no longer necessary for astronomers to work with averages when studying > > Mercury's orbital behavior. > > > > 6) Currently, electronic computers enable us to dispense with approximate > > calculation methods, and interplanetary probes such as Messenger have > > enabled nearly continuous monitoring of Mercury's orbit to an accuracy of > > several meters over a period of several years. > > I suppose you assumed that its light moved at c. Did the aether cause that? Nope. Simple geometry, which you display no capability of understanding. Ballistic theory is a complete non-starter. Why can you not cite a single experiment in its support? All you have are a few pathetic, inadequate curve fits... > > 7) Currently, we do not focus simply on the advancement of the perihelion. > > Who is this 'we'? > > > Instead, we examine the totality of Mercury's orbit. We have the ability now > > to dispense with Gauss's approximation and to compute directly the complex > > variations in each individual orbit. > > 8) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic" and certainly does not equate to > > "unpredictable". Your understanding of chaos theory is defective. > > 9) When all of the complex Newtonian and non-Newtonian deviations of Mercury's > > orbit from a Keplerian ellipse are accounted for, Einstein's General > > Relativity is discovered to have been fully validated. > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008 > > > > 10) I did my first calculation of an asteroid's orbit on the basis of three > > timed observations in 1968 when I was a teenager. My team photographed the > > asteroid on glass plates, identified the asteroid against the background > > stars with the aid of a blink comparator and large Palomar Sky Survey > > prints, measured its position with a Gaertner measuring engine, and chugged > > the data on a Bendix G 15 vacuum tube computer with a 2,176 word memory, > > magnetic drum, and paper tape input. What experience do *you* claim with > > celestial mechanics? > > My word you are an impressive fellow...a 'team' when only a teenager! > > .....all prokaryotes too I assume... During the Cold War, the United States, though the National Science Foundation, sponsored many camps for the development of young science talent, especially in the hard sciences. I attended one of these camps which focused on astronomy and celestial mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 06:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nftra0$t09$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382389 |
On 28/04/16 22:04, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:51:05 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >>> >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008 ...an interesting collection of publications by desperate dingleberry oppotunists attempting to attract attention by being the first to find evidence that Einstein's whole theory is not complete bullshit from start to finish. >>> >>> 10) I did my first calculation of an asteroid's orbit on the basis of three >>> timed observations in 1968 when I was a teenager. My team photographed the >>> asteroid on glass plates, identified the asteroid against the background >>> stars with the aid of a blink comparator and large Palomar Sky Survey >>> prints, measured its position with a Gaertner measuring engine, and chugged >>> the data on a Bendix G 15 vacuum tube computer with a 2,176 word memory, >>> magnetic drum, and paper tape input. What experience do *you* claim with >>> celestial mechanics? >> >> My word you are an impressive fellow...a 'team' when only a teenager! >> >> .....all prokaryotes too I assume... > > During the Cold War, the United States, though the National Science Foundation, > sponsored many camps for the development of young science talent, especially in > the hard sciences. > > I attended one of these camps which focused on astronomy and celestial > mechanics. I can only assume you were the one who washed the bottles... Are you female by any chance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jackpol11@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 17:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p005ib96cuih14k7oaucobq1nmjktm3bvg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #382376 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's >> AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each >> cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular >> instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. > >The astronomers of 70 to 175 years ago worked with averages because > >1) All computations were performed by hand. It was simply not possible for the > "computers" of the day (i.e. teams of young women simultaneously working on > different parts of an algorithm in a sort of "parallel processing" strategy, > double-checking each others' work) to perform the sorts of massive > computations that are routine today. >2) The quality of the data and the size of the available data sets did not > match that available currently. >3) Approximation methods were necessary to make complex calculations tractable. > The most important approximation method for computing precession was Gauss's > ring approximation, which substituted for a perturbing planet a ring of > material, denser in some parts, lighter in others to account for the varying > speed of the planet in its orbit. >4) From year to year, there will be large and highly predictable deviations in > the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury from the average measured value > of 5.3 arcseconds per year. Over the course of a century the sum of all of > these yearly advancements will equal something close to a highly PREDICTABLE > value of 531 arcseconds per century. >5) The characteristic time scale for the onset of chaos in Mercury's orbit is > on the order of millions of years. Over periods of mere centuries, the > motions of Mercury are utterly predictable. > >It is no longer necessary for astronomers to work with averages when studying >Mercury's orbital behavior. > >6) Currently, electronic computers enable us to dispense with approximate > calculation methods, and interplanetary probes such as Messenger have > enabled nearly continuous monitoring of Mercury's orbit to an accuracy of > several meters over a period of several years. >7) Currently, we do not focus simply on the advancement of the perihelion. > Instead, we examine the totality of Mercury's orbit. We have the ability now > to dispense with Gauss's approximation and to compute directly the complex > variations in each individual orbit. >8) "Complex" is not the same as "chaotic" and certainly does not equate to > "unpredictable". Your understanding of chaos theory is defective. >9) When all of the complex Newtonian and non-Newtonian deviations of Mercury's > orbit from a Keplerian ellipse are accounted for, Einstein's General > Relativity is discovered to have been fully validated. > >http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 >http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 >https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 >http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 >http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008 > >10) I did my first calculation of an asteroid's orbit on the basis of three > timed observations in 1968 when I was a teenager. My team photographed the > asteroid on glass plates, identified the asteroid against the background > stars with the aid of a blink comparator and large Palomar Sky Survey > prints, measured its position with a Gaertner measuring engine, and chugged > the data on a Bendix G 15 vacuum tube computer with a 2,176 word memory, > magnetic drum, and paper tape input. What experience do *you* claim with > celestial mechanics? You are probably talking about Icarus, for which I calculated some of its orbit usings its orbital elements. There was talk of its impending close approach. I don't remember the details but I did give a talk describing my work. John Polasek
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57ed0eff-dfbf-4138-9308-8003acdc2c7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
Presently, there is 1 trillion dollars of defaulted of student loans. In addition, there is 1 trillion dollars of defaulted auto loans. The 1 trillion dollars of student loans are covered by the US government but extremely worrisome is the 1 trillion dollars of auto loans. This is where all that JPN and EU easing money is going to cover the defaulted US auto loans which is about to become another 2008. Mitt was right about save the auto companies and banks since they manipulated the current auto loan situation which is going to collapse the DOW next week.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 07:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng8fes$1be4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382612 |
On 02/05/16 07:44, Carl Susumu wrote: > > > Presently, there is 1 trillion dollars of defaulted of student loans. > In addition, there is 1 trillion dollars of defaulted auto loans. > The 1 trillion dollars of student loans are covered by the US > government but extremely worrisome is the 1 trillion dollars of auto > loans. This is where all that JPN and EU easing money is going to > cover the defaulted US auto loans which is about to become another > 2008. Mitt was right about save the auto companies and banks since > they manipulated the current auto loan situation which is going to > collapse the DOW next week. > The amount of money in the world is like a cake. Each person has a share and the more people there are, the smaller is that share. Because of uncontrolled population growth, everyone is becoming rapidly poorer. The obvious answer is to print billions of new notes and give $5000 cash to every adult who guarantees to have no more children. One thousand dollars was given to most adults in Australia in 2008 and we hardly felt the effects of the crash. By the way, economists are all idiots...worse than relativists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee07aca8-e41f-4318-b954-7ffbd90611bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web