Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370651 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-22 11:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-30 14:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 23 — 8 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: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:55 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 21:08 +0100
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:31 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 22:27 +0100
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 19:10 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:39 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 05:54 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:44 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:37 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 18:41 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 23:19 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:26 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 23:26 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-24 09:33 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-24 20:50 +0100
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 13:28 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:27 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 10:54 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-24 20:39 +0100
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 22:53 -0800
Re: Comparing gravity and electromagnetism JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:31 -0800
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 23:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2301632.um1890ftQW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370805 |
JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>> W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 01:26:59 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:44:06 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>> > > Most interesting condition, for me, is A and B moving relative
>> > > to the observer, not moving relative to each other.
>> > > AFAIK, mathematics of em field of a moving object and mathematics
>> > > of g field of a moving object are completely different in relativity.
>> > > As they are very different, they probably won't give the same
>> > > result multiplied only by a constant. Though, it's not
>> > > totally impossible.
>> > > If they don't - it will mean broken balance. I.e, broken equivalence.
>> > > I.e. inconsistency.
>> >
>> > And of course nobody would have thought of it. Looks like you assume
>> > everyone is stupid.
>>
>> 2 years I'm repeating, that all physicist are idiots for me,
>> and after these 2 years you managed to conclude I do.
>> Brilliantly, Jan.
>> So, what is your answer?
>
> You seem inherently unable to detect sarcasm. Do you know what
> "reading between the lines" means?
The record shows that they do not even know how to read the lines.
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 | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 22:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29fbe057-6239-4fc0-bad0-1a0b5ec080c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370825 |
W dniu środa, 25 listopada 2015 00:19:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 01:26:59 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:44:06 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> > > Most interesting condition, for me, is A and B moving relative > >> > > to the observer, not moving relative to each other. > >> > > AFAIK, mathematics of em field of a moving object and mathematics > >> > > of g field of a moving object are completely different in relativity. > >> > > As they are very different, they probably won't give the same > >> > > result multiplied only by a constant. Though, it's not > >> > > totally impossible. > >> > > If they don't - it will mean broken balance. I.e, broken equivalence. > >> > > I.e. inconsistency. > >> > > >> > And of course nobody would have thought of it. Looks like you assume > >> > everyone is stupid. > >> > >> 2 years I'm repeating, that all physicist are idiots for me, > >> and after these 2 years you managed to conclude I do. > >> Brilliantly, Jan. > >> So, what is your answer? > > > > You seem inherently unable to detect sarcasm. Do you know what > > "reading between the lines" means? > > The record shows that they do not even know how to read the lines. :) Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you're able to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 14:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b467abd1-53ab-42c2-b929-94f6d9bc87ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370825 |
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:19:25 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 01:26:59 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:44:06 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> > > Most interesting condition, for me, is A and B moving relative > >> > > to the observer, not moving relative to each other. > >> > > AFAIK, mathematics of em field of a moving object and mathematics > >> > > of g field of a moving object are completely different in relativity. > >> > > As they are very different, they probably won't give the same > >> > > result multiplied only by a constant. Though, it's not > >> > > totally impossible. > >> > > If they don't - it will mean broken balance. I.e, broken equivalence. > >> > > I.e. inconsistency. > >> > > >> > And of course nobody would have thought of it. Looks like you assume > >> > everyone is stupid. > >> > >> 2 years I'm repeating, that all physicist are idiots for me, > >> and after these 2 years you managed to conclude I do. > >> Brilliantly, Jan. > >> So, what is your answer? > > > > You seem inherently unable to detect sarcasm. Do you know what > > "reading between the lines" means? > > The record shows that they do not even know how to read the lines. He seems to suffer from a cognitive disability of some sort. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web