Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-14 11:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 43 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:15 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:54 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 13:23 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-15 21:20 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 17:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-17 21:51 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 12:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 19:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-18 09:24 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-20 17:01 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 12:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:03 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2015-11-22 11:04 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 18:15 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 19:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gatuzo <Gatuzo@gallaxial.com> - 2015-11-22 00:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:06 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-23 17:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:17 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:05 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:31 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-26 10:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 01:55 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 04:52 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 05:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 06:21 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 06:55 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 16:34 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 10:00 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:34 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Androcles Ghost<xx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:23 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 15:09 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 14:58 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:54 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 23:58 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:38 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 11:53 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ekip$em6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371049 |
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 23:58:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >> Why don't you and Gary Harnagel go to a small tropical island somewhere >> and search for each other's brain cell. > > Good question. I for one would prefer to not meet you there. > > BTW, the “From” header field value of your posting violates > Internet/Usenet standards; see RFC 5536. Oh , made a fool of yourself and got the shits, eh. Well you know what you can do. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 11:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1733778.4co54aR5bj@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371065 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 23:58:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Why don't you and Gary Harnagel go to a small tropical island somewhere >>> and search for each other's brain cell. >> Good question. I for one would prefer to not meet you there. >> >> BTW, the “From” header field value of your posting violates >> Internet/Usenet standards; see RFC 5536. > > Oh , made a fool of yourself How do you get that crazy idea? > and got the shits, eh. I would seem that your vocabulary forms an empty intersection with mine. > Well you know what you can do. Yes: F'up2 where this belongs. PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n396s1$6m1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370962 |
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:55:00 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:27 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>>> No. Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of >>>>> moving bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2: >>>>> >>>>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be >>>>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not >>>>> require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special >>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty >>>>> space in which electromagnetic processes take place.’ >>>> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot. >>> You are still the idiot here. This is an *exact* quotation from >>> paragraph 2 of the cited work. >>> >>>>> Which part of that do you not understand? >>>> >>>> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you. >>> >>> Beats me in your case as well. >>> >>>> Now quote his P2. >>> >>> BTDT. If only you cared to read… >> >> You obviously haven't read beyond paragraph 2. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy> > > I have read beyond paragraph 2, but the issue here was *only* paragraph > 2 of the work. You claimed: > > “Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light > from differently moving sources.” > > That is wrong, because paragraph 2 of the work says the exact opposite > of what you claim. And it starts with saying that attempts to detect > that ether have been unsuccessful, and that therefore the idea of the > ether should be abandoned: > > “Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” > suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They > suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of > small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be > valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good.¹” > > “*Unsuccessful* attempts” and “*no* properties corresponding to the idea > of absolute rest”! That's right. that is what his first postulate is all about. You obviously don't understand the theory you spend all your time defending. Do you have an ulterior motive? Then he defines his second postulate, in which he merely states that light speed in space is independent of the speed of both the observer and the source. Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid. To claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it is just pathetic nonsense. >> Was it too hard for you ..or did you find it too nonsensical to read? > > Einstein makes a lot of sense there, but one must *want to* understand > him first. You don’t do either. You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or its blatant flaws. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web