Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-23 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-03-30 07:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 223 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-23 09:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-23 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 18:42 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-23 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 21:52 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-24 09:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 10:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 13:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 02:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-23 23:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 06:33 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 17:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 16:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-26 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 13:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 11:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-24 22:51 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 15:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 12:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 15:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-25 01:12 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 23:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 23:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 07:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 01:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 12:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 06:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 10:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 12:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 20:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 16:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 19:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 19:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 04:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 05:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 06:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 08:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 20:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 19:38 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Kip Tubbs <eqsl@ejfdawi.wo> - 2018-03-27 21:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 20:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 18:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 05:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 18:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 04:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 05:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 14:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 21:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 22:29 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 21:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 02:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 05:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 18:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 17:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 17:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-01 11:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 22:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-31 00:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-31 07:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 21:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 22:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 04:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 08:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 05:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-27 12:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-27 12:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 08:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 21:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 06:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 09:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-26 21:15 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 08:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 19:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-25 20:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:29 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 19:51 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 21:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 22:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 01:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 03:07 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 04:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 04:58 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:05 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 15:31 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-30 20:11 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:21 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 19:12 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 23:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-28 10:27 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:12 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-28 14:16 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 00:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-29 03:02 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:25 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 00:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 21:51 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 00:07 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:35 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-04-01 13:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-01 14:30 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 23:18 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 17:17 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 15:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 15:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 08:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-02 17:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 18:54 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 05:30 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-01 08:52 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-04-01 14:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:09 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-01 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 20:38 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 07:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:42 -0700
LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-02 11:41 -0500
Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-04 01:51 +0200
Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 03:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 20:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 21:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-29 09:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 23:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-30 06:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 00:38 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 16:06 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 17:27 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:29 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 20:58 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:48 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:14 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 14:03 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:17 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:14 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 23:11 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 01:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-02 09:01 +0200
Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 07:35 -0700
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 17:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9thhj$1s07$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454477 |
Il 01/04/2018 23:18, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> In my demonstrations, for CMBR photon frequency isotropic, I mean >> without the dipole anisotropy (see sentences between ****). > > But it still is not, then. Just look at the image. How many colors do you > count there? > > (If you think the CMB frequency is isotropic, then you are misunderstanding > Tom Roberts’ comments.) > Instead Tom Robert confirms what I wrote. I report below what he wrote. "The dominant multipole in the CMBR, as seen from earth, is the dipole, by several orders of magnitude. This dipole, of course, can be removed by simply moving inertially at the proper velocity, which near earth is about 370 km/sec relative to the sun, towards the constellation Leo. In that frame, the CMBR is isotropic to ~20 parts per million." In fact, Tom Robert states that once the dipole anisotropy has been removed, the CMBR is isotropic except for about 20 parts per million. And I have basically written that without the dipole anisotrophy, I consider CMBR isotropic and, therefore, I do not take into account the slight anisotropies (20 ppm), above all because, "they do not affect the present theory and, therefore, for simplicity will not always be considered in this paper". Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09babaec-bbe2-4a66-a030-cb14c24bcccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454390 |
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:51:44 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his > theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special > relativity (SR). > > Only Poincaré insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified > version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR, without > a shred of evidence to back that up (the ether is by his own theory > undetectable). Contrary to Lorentz, he would not even acknowledge > Einstein’s contribution. So ISTM that, unfortunately, at an old age > the once reknowned scientist became somewhat of a crackpot who likes to > believe their own fantasies (here: the ether as a preferred reference > frame) rather than observed reality (all reference frames have equal > standing). Similar to you. Rather strong words against Poincaré. My own recollection is that Poincare spent his last productive years (i.e. up to approx. 1910) working on problems of celestial mechanics, a field in which he had earlier made fundamental contributions, including the first identification of what is now recognized as chaotic behavior, in his study of three body systems in the 1880s. A quick scan of a couple of Poincare bibliographies accessible to me (via online university library access) reveals no obvious publication which could be used to support your assertion that he "insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR." I do not doubt that he preferred his own interpretation of LET, but I do not find evidence that he publicly denounced SR "to his own death" in the manner of a crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e70be8e3-dea9-4409-aefa-79b262739bdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454478 |
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:11:15 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:51:44 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his > > theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special > > relativity (SR). > > > > Only Poincaré insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified > > version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR, without > > a shred of evidence to back that up (the ether is by his own theory > > undetectable). Contrary to Lorentz, he would not even acknowledge > > Einstein’s contribution. So ISTM that, unfortunately, at an old age > > the once reknowned scientist became somewhat of a crackpot who likes to > > believe their own fantasies (here: the ether as a preferred reference > > frame) rather than observed reality (all reference frames have equal > > standing). Similar to you. > > Rather strong words against Poincaré. My own recollection is that Poincare > spent his last productive years (i.e. up to approx. 1910) working on problems > of celestial mechanics, a field in which he had earlier made fundamental > contributions, including the first identification of what is now recognized > as chaotic behavior, in his study of three body systems in the 1880s. > > A quick scan of a couple of Poincare bibliographies accessible to me (via online > university library access) reveals no obvious publication which could be used > to support your assertion that he "insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his > modified version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR." > > I do not doubt that he preferred his own interpretation of LET, but I do not > find evidence that he publicly denounced SR "to his own death" in the manner > of a crackpot. Clarification: In such publications as "The New Mechanics" (posthumously published in English translation in 1913) Poincare writes using a dynamical interpretation of LET, but the manner in which he presents the material is far from crackpot. As I have indicated elsewhere, Poincare was a conventionalist, and the method of description that he adopted represented what was *for him* a simpler and more natural presentation of the same physical phenomena. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-27900439/27900439#page/n1/mode/2up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aea11676-bcd9-4785-b3cd-3c3d45751d46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454483 |
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:44:04 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Clarification: In such publications as "The New Mechanics" (posthumously > published in English translation in 1913) Poincare writes using a dynamical > interpretation of LET, but the manner in which he presents the material is far > from crackpot. As I have indicated elsewhere, Poincare was a conventionalist, > and the method of description that he adopted represented what was *for him* > a simpler and more natural presentation of the same physical phenomena. > https://archive.org/stream/jstor-27900439/27900439#page/n1/mode/2up The original French of "The New Mechanics" was "La dynamique de l’électron", Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 19: 386–402 (1908) It is available here: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9tpd7$ahp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454518 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > The original French of "The New Mechanics" was "La dynamique de > l’électron", Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 19: 386–402 > (1908) Can you tie you own shoes or do you use velcro?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 18:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LOWdne84IPU_gl3HnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454337 |
On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, Sure it is. That's what that acronym means around here. The Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from Special Relativity, even though it is based on completely different principles (some of which are quite arbitrary). In particular, LET assumes a completely unobservable ether, which cannot be observed by any experiment whatsoever. That makes it unpalatable to most physicists. Lorentz acknowledged that Einstein's approach was much better. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 02:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1879008.KlZ2vcFHjT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454405 |
[I forgot to mention the source.] Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, > > Sure it is. No, it is not. > That's what that acronym means around here. It may be what *you* mean, but not what it *usually* means: ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory> | | What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in | Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the | development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at | the beginning of the 20th century. […] | | Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo- | Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. […] > [things I already know] > Lorentz acknowledged that Einstein's approach was much better. No doubt about that. HTH PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 21:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IIudnT8WsajI1V3HnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454408 |
On 3/31/18 7:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [I forgot to mention the source.] > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, >> >> Sure it is. > > No, it is not. > >> That's what that acronym means around here. > > It may be what *you* mean, but not what it *usually* means: > > ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory> > | > | What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in > | Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the > | development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at > | the beginning of the 20th century. […] > | > | Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo- > | Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. […] Strange -- you say "No, it is not" and then quote an article that agrees with what I said: LET refers to the Lorentz Ether Theory. LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, but is not at all the same theory, or an "interpretation" of SR. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1618029.3VsfAaAtOV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454413 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/31/18 7:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory,
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Sure it is.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>>
>>> That's what that acronym means around here.
>>
>> It may be what *you* mean, but not what it *usually* means:
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory>
>> |
>> | What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in
>> | Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in
>> | the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th
>> | and at the beginning of the 20th century. […]
>> |
>> | Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-
>> | Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. […]
>
> Strange -- you say "No, it is not" and then quote an article that agrees
> with what I said: LET refers to the Lorentz Ether Theory.
LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory (named *after* Lorentz),
but _not_ *Lorentz’* ether theory.
Note the difference, and try to read my statements in context next time.
PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 08:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NbydnVIDWs6QeV3HnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454415 |
On 3/31/18 10:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory (named *after* Lorentz), > but _not_ *Lorentz’* ether theory. > Note the difference, and try to read my statements in context next time. Such linguistic nuances are ridiculous -- you attempt to make a distinction without a difference: Lorentz DID create it, so the possessive is not wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 14:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9qq9q$1kga$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454428 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/31/18 10:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory (named *after* Lorentz), >> but _not_ *Lorentz’* ether theory. Note the difference, and try to read >> my statements in context next time. > > Such linguistic nuances are ridiculous -- you attempt to make a > distinction without a difference: Lorentz DID create it, so the > possessive is not wrong. Tom Roberts Absolutely, but he is stupid and severely uneducated. Which is to expect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 18:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5933069.4vTCxPXJkl@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454428 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/31/18 10:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory (named *after* Lorentz),
>> but _not_ *Lorentz’* ether theory.
>> Note the difference, and try to read my statements in context next time.
>
> Such linguistic nuances are ridiculous -- you attempt to make a
> distinction without a difference: Lorentz DID create it, so the
> possessive is not wrong.
You are wrong. Read the quotation from Wikipedia *again*:
| What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the
| development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at
| the beginning of the 20th century. […]
LET (1905+) *differs* from “Lorentz’(s) ether theory” as referred to in this
thread (1892 to 1904) in several respects. For example, like SR does using
other means, only LET includes a physical explanation for “local time” and
the proper equation for the transformation of the temporal coordinate,
because those were introduced by Poincaré on 1905-06-05, and found
independently (and based on other concepts) by Einstein in OEoMB
(1905-06-30).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations>
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <479wC.127846$3o5.98686@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #454438 |
Den 01.04.2018 18.09, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/31/18 10:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory (named *after* Lorentz), >>> but _not_ *Lorentz’* ether theory. >>> Note the difference, and try to read my statements in context next time. >> >> Such linguistic nuances are ridiculous -- you attempt to make a >> distinction without a difference: Lorentz DID create it, so the >> possessive is not wrong. > > You are wrong. Read the quotation from Wikipedia *again*: > > | What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the > | development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at > | the beginning of the 20th century. […] > > LET (1905+) *differs* from “Lorentz’(s) ether theory” as referred to in this > thread (1892 to 1904) in several respects. For example, like SR does using > other means, only LET includes a physical explanation for “local time” and > the proper equation for the transformation of the temporal coordinate, > because those were introduced by Poincaré on 1905-06-05, and found > independently (and based on other concepts) by Einstein in OEoMB > (1905-06-30). > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations> > > > PointedEars > The theory which is called Lorentz Ether Theory, LET, was introduced in 1904: https://paulba.no/paper/Lorentz04.pdf https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 20:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3207321.LM0AJKV5NW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454450 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > The theory which is called Lorentz Ether Theory, LET, > was introduced in 1904: No, it was not. > [irrelevant evidence] PointedEars -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65c52daa-9ac6-4de4-a6dc-721527778d2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454413 |
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 9:47:56 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/31/18 7:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > [I forgot to mention the source.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory,
> >>
> >> Sure it is.
> >
> > No, it is not.
> >
> >> That's what that acronym means around here.
> >
> > It may be what *you* mean, but not what it *usually* means:
> >
> > ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory>
> > |
> > | What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in
> > | Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the
> > | development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at
> > | the beginning of the 20th century. […]
> > |
> > | Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-
> > | Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. […]
>
> Strange -- you say "No, it is not" and then quote an article that agrees
> with what I said: LET refers to the Lorentz Ether Theory.
>
> LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR, but is not at all the
> same theory, or an "interpretation" of SR.
I haven't made a special study of LET, so please feel free in the following to
correct me on what I presume will be a fair number of misconceptions about LET.
Precede every numbered statement below with an implicit "as I understand it
(not having actually studied the topic.)"
Would an appropriate abbreviation/acronym be AIUI(NHASTT)?
1) LET is an extension of Lorentz's Theory of the Electron, but was never
actually articulated by Lorentz.
2) The term "electron" in Lorentz's day meant something very different from
the current usage of the term. The nearest I can figure is that "electron"
is more or less synonymous with "matter". Other subatomic particles were
unknown. The proton (hydrogen nucleus) wasn't discovered until 1920, and
the neutron wasn't discovered until 1932.
3) The term "aether" in Lorentz's Theory of the Electron specifically refers
to a luminiferous aether, through which light propagates.
4) Although gravitation was known as a force, the concept of gravitational
waves was [virtually] unknown.
5) Strong and weak forces were unknown.
6) It is manifestly impossible that a single aether could serve simultaneously
to propagate electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces/waves.
7) LET would demand four different aethers:
a) luminiferous (electromagnetic) aether (LA)
b) gravitational aether (GA)
c) strong aether (SA)
d) weak aether (WA)
8) The properties of LA, GA, SA and WA must be fine-tuned to match each other
to an improbable degree.
a) They all must exhibit the same limiting speed: c_LA = c_GA = c_SA = c_WA
b) The Lorentz transformation also applies to all four aethers, although
a priory there is no logical reason within the context of LET why this
must be so.
9) If LA, GA, SA and WA were not fine-tuned to match each other, then high
speed particles would literally rip themselves to shreds.
Because of the improbable amount of fine-tuning necessary to make LET work,
LET is ugly and irrational. Without this arbitrary fine-tuning, LET predicts
effects that are totally contrary to experimental result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cba5ee5d-87bf-41af-aea0-ef4c7488f361@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454429 |
On Sunday, 1 April 2018 16:01:20 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Because of the improbable amount of fine-tuning necessary to make LET work, > LET is ugly and irrational. While The Shit of Great Guru is so beautiful... but anyway your tales of MMX falsyfying ether are a fucken lie, as expected from brainwashed fanatics. Aren't they?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 11:41 -0500 |
| Subject | LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) |
| Message-ID | <FKudncGrO9vKwF_HnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454429 |
On 4/1/18 9:01 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > [caveats omitted] > 1) LET is an extension of Lorentz's Theory of the Electron, but was never > actually articulated by Lorentz. Yes. > 2) The term "electron" in Lorentz's day meant something very different from > the current usage of the term. The nearest I can figure is that "electron" > is more or less synonymous with "matter". Other subatomic particles were > unknown. The proton (hydrogen nucleus) wasn't discovered until 1920, and > the neutron wasn't discovered until 1932. To Lorentz, "electron" means charged matter. He wrote several times that he makes no assumptions about its constituency, specifically whether it is continuous or particulate. > 3) The term "aether" in Lorentz's Theory of the Electron specifically refers > to a luminiferous aether, through which light propagates. Yes, and which supports electromagnetic fields. > 4) Although gravitation was known as a force, the concept of gravitational > waves was [virtually] unknown. > 5) Strong and weak forces were unknown. Yes to both. LET applies only to electromagnetism. > 6) It is manifestly impossible that a single aether could serve simultaneously > to propagate electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces/waves. > 7) LET would demand four different aethers: > a) luminiferous (electromagnetic) aether (LA) > b) gravitational aether (GA) > c) strong aether (SA) > d) weak aether (WA) > 8) The properties of LA, GA, SA and WA must be fine-tuned to match each other > to an improbable degree. > a) They all must exhibit the same limiting speed: c_LA = c_GA = c_SA = c_WA > b) The Lorentz transformation also applies to all four aethers, although > a priory there is no logical reason within the context of LET why this > must be so. > 9) If LA, GA, SA and WA were not fine-tuned to match each other, then high > speed particles would literally rip themselves to shreds. Yes to all, though in (7) this is an "enhanced LET"; LET itself applies only to electromagnetism. Today it simply is not possible to construct a self-consistent theory based on LET, without outrageous fine-tuning among the various ethers. The only way modern physicists would consider such a theory is if an EXPERIMENT directly demonstrated some property of the ether -- but LET itself predicts that is impossible. > Because of the improbable amount of fine-tuning necessary to make LET work, > LET is ugly and irrational. Without this arbitrary fine-tuning, LET predicts > effects that are totally contrary to experimental result. In this last sentence you mean "LET as enhanced to include the other known interactions", because LET applies only to electromagnetism. Today LET is strictly the province of cranks and idiots who think relativity is somehow "wrong"; nobody who understands the issues considers it viable at all. The fact that it is experimentally indistinguishable from SR makes it irrelevant (except as an historical footnote). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 01:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) |
| Message-ID | <2261223.Sgy9Pd6rRy@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454526 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/1/18 9:01 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> 2) The term "electron" in Lorentz's day meant something very different >> from the current usage of the term. Correct. >> The nearest I can figure is that "electron" is more or less >> synonymous with "matter". That is too simple. >> Other subatomic particles were unknown. The proton (hydrogen >> nucleus) wasn't discovered until 1920, and the neutron wasn't >> discovered until 1932. The electron was discovered as a particle (though not in the QM sense, of course) by J. J. Thomson (Nobel Prize in Physics 1909) and his team in 1896, in cathode-ray experiments. Based on that, Thomson was also the first to suggest in 1897 that the atom was divisible (by contrast to the original meaning of the term: /ατοµοσ/ [atomos = a + tomos] “the indivisible”): he called, what we now call “particles”, “primordial atoms” and “corpuscles”, and electrons would be the corpuscles in the “chemical atom” that carry the negative charge (plum pudding model, later shown to be incorrect by his student, Ernest Rutherford). Lorentz postulated his ether theory first in 1892, and in it he suggested the possibility of an electron (it was his theory of electrodynamics, after all). (He was not the first to do that.) He refined his theory repeatedly in subsequent years (e.g. in 1899), also in light of Thomsons experimental results on the mass of that newfound particle. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Electromagnetic_mass> > To Lorentz, "electron" means charged matter. He wrote several times that > he makes no assumptions about its constituency, specifically whether it is > continuous or particulate. Cite evidence. The first sentence of the translation of his 1898 paper “Simplified theory of electrical and optical phenomena in moving systems” (easily found with Google Scholar) is: | § 1. In former investigations I have assumed that, in all electrical and | optical phenomena, taking place in ponderable matter, we have to do with | small charged *particles* or ions, […] (emphasis mine) PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 03:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) |
| Message-ID | <cdc95833-4e09-43f8-a8bb-5b5a0ea06342@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454526 |
On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/1/18 9:01 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > 2) The term "electron" in Lorentz's day meant something very different from > > the current usage of the term. The nearest I can figure is that "electron" > > is more or less synonymous with "matter". Other subatomic particles were > > unknown. The proton (hydrogen nucleus) wasn't discovered until 1920, and > > the neutron wasn't discovered until 1932. > > To Lorentz, "electron" means charged matter. He wrote several times that he > makes no assumptions about its constituency, specifically whether it is > continuous or particulate. I never knew that. That makes sense. In 1904, the most popular model of atoms considered that negative electrons floated in a cloud of uniform positive charge (plum pudding model). Nowhere have I seen it stated explicitly, but the assumption must have been made that this cloud of positive matter must follow the same transformation rules as electrons, otherwise motions through the aether should have detectable effects. But the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904), and the Trouton-Noble experiment (1901-1903) detected no material strains associated with the motion of matter through space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Noble_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace Since uncharged matter was unknown, the negative constituents of matter plus the positive constituents of matter equals -all- matter. But Lorentz's papers referred only to "electrons". Hence my uncertainty about what he really meant by the term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94c60555-0ed9-4f95-945d-b6c6ce16823b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454405 |
tjrob137 On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, Sure it is. That's what that acronym means around here. The Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from Special Relativity, even though it is based on completely different principles (some of which are quite arbitrary). I think what you guys are missing is When ever comparing (one mass structure in its own reference Frame) to (another mass structure in its own reference Frame), the Coordinate Systems are exactly Inverse of each other...... canceling Essentially (particle a in Aether Frame a) is observing (particle /a in Aether Frame /a) The 2 Inverse Aether frames cancel & eliminate It is a möbius transformation https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZUUbrWTGSyXZt5bc2 In particular, LET assumes a completely unobservable ether, which cannot be observed by any experiment whatsoever. That makes it unpalatable to most physicists. Lorentz acknowledged that Einstein's approach was much better. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web