Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455078 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-07 14:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-10 10:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 428 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-07 14:06 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-07 23:20 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-07 14:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-07 15:29 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-07 17:52 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 08:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 09:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 16:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 09:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 10:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 12:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 13:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 13:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:03 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 14:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 15:00 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 15:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:16 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 14:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:12 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 04:10 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:30 -0500
[OT] Latin (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-10 03:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Latin (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 06:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Latin Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-10 18:18 +0200
Re: [OT] Latin Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-10 12:56 -0400
Newton’s «Principia» online (was: [OT] Latin) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 03:25 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:25 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:30 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 18:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 10:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 13:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 14:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-09 14:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 14:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:46 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 14:50 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-09 15:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 08:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-10 10:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 13:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 17:18 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 17:57 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:16 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-10 00:43 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 08:45 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 09:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 10:05 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 10:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 13:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:05 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 16:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:29 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 10:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 14:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 14:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:18 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 17:25 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:29 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 15:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 09:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:19 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 09:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-10 10:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 14:06 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:42 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 15:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 17:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 18:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 18:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:42 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:04 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 09:17 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 16:40 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 09:57 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 17:25 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 12:17 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 12:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:51 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 13:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 13:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 19:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 16:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 09:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 17:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 18:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 08:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 18:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 18:55 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 19:03 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 10:04 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-15 21:15 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 13:19 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-16 10:16 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-16 02:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-16 14:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-15 21:18 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-16 06:19 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-15 22:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-16 07:22 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-15 23:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:54 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 12:23 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 13:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 10:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 10:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 14:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 16:01 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 07:54 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 08:18 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 08:54 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 09:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 14:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-10 20:55 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 11:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 13:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 13:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:36 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 07:12 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:35 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 13:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 14:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 15:01 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-08 21:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-07 16:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-07 17:06 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-07 17:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 00:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 01:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 02:03 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 09:23 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 23:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 09:05 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-08 11:02 +1000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-07 22:46 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 09:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 09:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-07 22:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 09:28 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 09:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-09 12:13 +1000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-09 12:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Gaston Levell <jno@itwjwg.tn> - 2018-04-09 20:05 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 14:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-10 12:29 +1000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:39 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 14:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-09 17:07 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 03:55 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 09:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 09:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-08 16:33 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:48 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-08 15:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-08 15:23 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 19:00 -0700
Diffraction grating and annual Doppler effect (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 13:24 -0500
Re: Diffraction grating and annual Doppler effect (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 16:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 07:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 08:03 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 14:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 15:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 23:18 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-10 01:37 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-10 02:11 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 20:34 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-10 05:47 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 20:50 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 08:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-11 14:17 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:23 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 13:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 13:51 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-11 17:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 11:04 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-12 06:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 13:39 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-12 11:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 01:55 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 04:47 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:07 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 05:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 06:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 14:43 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 22:17 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:02 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 22:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:58 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 16:57 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-12 15:08 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-09 08:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 17:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 18:36 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-09 07:34 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 07:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-09 16:59 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 08:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 08:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 08:28 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 08:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 09:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 09:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 18:36 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:28 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-11 16:33 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-11 10:50 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:48 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:55 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 09:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 16:52 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 17:08 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 12:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:37 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-11 12:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 22:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 12:28 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:30 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 12:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 19:46 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-11 14:07 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 12:39 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-11 18:56 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 08:57 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-12 09:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 09:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 09:50 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-12 18:55 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 10:05 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 10:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 16:34 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 08:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-13 18:00 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:09 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 09:05 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 09:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-12 10:19 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 14:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-12 15:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-12 21:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 09:23 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 09:29 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 07:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 15:14 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 09:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 09:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 14:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 19:11 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-13 08:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 09:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 12:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 14:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 16:54 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 17:19 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 08:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 15:51 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-14 10:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 12:41 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 15:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-14 15:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 10:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 10:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 11:24 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 11:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 11:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 12:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 13:23 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:39 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:39 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-18 09:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-14 11:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 13:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-14 14:48 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 15:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 10:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 10:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 12:43 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 13:40 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 22:01 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-15 15:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-16 13:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-16 14:12 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-16 14:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 15:34 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:42 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 08:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-17 17:45 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 08:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 09:23 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 09:44 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 13:05 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 14:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 09:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-18 13:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-17 11:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:17 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 09:38 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 14:35 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 16:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-16 13:58 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 14:54 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 15:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 15:39 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:10 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-17 17:13 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 15:42 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 12:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 13:34 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:07 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-17 21:14 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 15:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-18 11:55 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 14:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-18 17:34 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-21 06:19 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-21 09:47 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-21 06:16 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 14:19 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:47 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:57 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 09:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-18 21:10 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 20:14 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 14:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 14:27 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 20:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 10:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 12:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 13:53 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 14:57 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 15:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 10:13 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 14:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:37 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-17 00:18 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-17 00:37 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 16:42 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-16 17:02 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 17:12 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 22:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-17 19:25 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 15:32 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 22:37 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 18:21 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 19:15 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 19:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-17 04:32 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 20:30 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 22:52 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-16 23:49 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 01:28 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-17 02:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:17 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 15:03 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-18 09:59 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:56 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-14 00:09 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 10:16 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-13 19:20 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 20:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 16:17 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 02:03 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-12 19:16 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-13 13:25 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-13 19:53 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-17 15:22 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-12 12:35 -0400
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 10:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-12 22:26 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-13 05:51 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-11 15:31 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:38 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-11 19:05 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-12 09:08 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-12 09:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 09:46 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-12 23:19 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 03:01 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-13 12:16 +0200
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 08:29 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 15:53 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 09:26 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:34 -0500
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:23 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-14 08:20 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 15:33 +0000
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 09:33 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 10:11 -0700
Re: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 13:24 -0700
The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics KronosPrime@outlook.com - 2018-04-10 10:01 -0700
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 20:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mnelcdhc058pbtf5jebou4kucbtvvsv96g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #455163 |
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: > ... As I said, I know what an inertial coordinate system is. You very > clearly do NOT.... Agnosco veteris vestigia flamma bellum. It is at this point that I recall with lingering contempt all the times I've ever heard people say, "It's only semantics!" In case you don't know, that word refers, both in comparative and formal linguistics, to the study of what statements *actually mean*. And that's important here. If by some physics-related utterance you mean something different from what people who study physics mean by those same words, then it is utterly pointless for you to try to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with them. In science, engineering or mathematics, in law, in medicine, in any profession, people *agree very precisely on what words mean* because it is important that when they use those words they can be certain that they evoke the same concept in the mind of the listener as in that of the speaker. If you don't learn what the words mean, you're lost. Do you *like* being lost? -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 04:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3018918.usfYGdeWWP@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #455197 |
Lofty Goat wrote: > Agnosco veteris vestigia flamma bellum. What’s this, then? “I recognize, of old, footprints, fire, war”? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI> PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g6mncd90bbfbjg5t74rulehgtaq8foupfs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #455203 |
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 04:10:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >Lofty Goat wrote: > >> Agnosco veteris vestigia flamma bellum. > >What’s this, then? “I recognize, of old, footprints, fire, war”? > ><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI> Virgil wrote in the Aeneid of Aeneus encountering Dido after many years of wandering: Agnosco veteris vestigia flammae, to wit I recognize the vestiges of an old flame. Mine? "I recognize what's left of an old flame war." [grin] -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 03:56 +0200 |
| Subject | [OT] Latin (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) |
| Message-ID | <2983800.KgjxqYA5nG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #455300 |
Lofty Goat wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^ Your real name belongs there. <OT> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 04:10:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>Lofty Goat wrote: >>> Agnosco veteris vestigia flamma bellum. >>Whats this, then? I recognize, of old, footprints, fire, war? >> >><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI> > > Virgil wrote in the Aeneid of Aeneus encountering Dido after many years _Æneas_ or Aene_a_s > of wandering: Agnosco veteris vestigia flammae, to wit I recognize the > vestiges of an old flame. Yes of course; but *he* wrote «flamma_e_», the *genitive* singular of «flamma» (“flame”, “fire”), as «veteris» is the *genitive* singular of «vetus» (“former”, “old”): Agnōscō veteris vestīgia flammae. I recognize of-former/old traces of-flame/fire. [He could also have written, closer to English, «Agnōscō vestīgia veteris flammae.» I do not know why Vergil chose the other word order; however, word order in Latin is not fixed as the meaning of the sentence can be derived from inflection. Here, «veteris» (adjective) and «flammae» (noun) belong together as both are in the genitive singular, whereas «vestīgia» is the accusative plural of «vestīgium» (“trace”) as required by «agnōscō».] > Mine? "I recognize what's left of an old flame war." [grin] OK, but as the Centurion strongly indicated to Brian ;-), different from English, which is less inflected, in Latin you cannot just juxtapose nouns in the *nominative* case to make a new compound. One proper way is a genitive construction (the other is affixing), which is implicit with many compounds in English (case in point: “flame war”). To keep Vergil’s word order, you could say: Agnōscō veteris vestīgia bellī flammārum. I recognize of-old traces of-war of-flames. Or, closer to English: Agnōscō vestīgia veteris bellī flammārum. I recognize traces of-old of-war of-flames. Here, the compound “flame war” becomes “war of flames”, and because those are traces *of* the flame war, one has to use the genitive singular of «bellum», too (as previously of «flamma»). [Over time, «flamma(e)bellum» could have become a compound to mean “flame war”, like «agnōscō» (“I recognize”, from «ad» “towards” + «(g)nōscō» “I know”), «omnipotens» (“all-powerful”, from «omnis» “all” + «potens» “power”), etc. Then the genitive singular would have been «flamma(e)bellī».] HTH. </OT> PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 06:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Latin (was: The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics) |
| Message-ID | <oo7pcdtq86k22e63qmsg970a6hrd68u8ns@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #455348 |
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:56:11 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >Lofty Goat wrote: >^^^^^^^^^^ >Your real name belongs there. Yeah, right, sure. Look at the headers. > ... Yes of course; but *he* wrote «flamma_e_», the *genitive* singular > of «flamma».... Sure thing. Flammae belli? It's been 45 damn' years. Maybe if I'd listened to those newscasts from Finland? -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 18:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Latin |
| Message-ID | <3567856.ZaRXLXkqSa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #455399 |
Lofty Goat wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:56:11 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>Lofty Goat wrote: >>^^^^^^^^^^ >>Your real name belongs there. > > Yeah, right, sure. Look at the headers. There is no real name in the _header_, that is why there is none in the attribution line. >> ... Yes of course; but *he* wrote «flamma_e_», the *genitive* singular >> of «flamma».... > > Sure thing. Flammae belli? That would be “of (the) wars of (the) flame”. See my suggestion further down instead. > It's been 45 damn' years. Maybe if I'd > listened to those newscasts from Finland? Reading the Latin sections of the English-speaking Wiktionary articles helps already :) F’up2 poster PointedEars -- «Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.» (“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”) —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 12:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Latin |
| Message-ID | <paiqed$2sj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #455426 |
On 4/10/2018 12:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Lofty Goat wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 03:56:11 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Lofty Goat wrote: >>> ^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Your real name belongs there. >> >> Yeah, right, sure. Look at the headers. > > There is no real name in the _header_, that is why there is none in the > attribution line. These days, using your real name on Usenet is not necessarily a good idea, given how there are many 'unstable' people on Usenet and elsewhere on the internet. In the old days, everyone on Usenet was either a university student or staff, or an employee of a high-tech company. Fewer kooks, both percentage wise and in total. But that was long ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 03:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Newton’s «Principia» online (was: [OT] Latin) |
| Message-ID | <1788349.PCUV08mupK@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #455399 |
Lofty Goat wrote: > […] It's been 45 damn' years. Maybe if I'd > listened to those newscasts from Finland? On-topic again: You could also read Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica» [of-philosophy of-nature principles mathematics] “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” in the Latin original :) It is available for free online, for example <http://sites.trin.cam.ac.uk/manuscripts/NQ_16_200/manuscript.php?fullpage=1/> More see e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Latin_versions> And it really is worth the read (keeping in mind that this was published 334 years ago). PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9973078e-39f6-47c8-82f9-598c22f3fc6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455197 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:12:08 PM UTC-5, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: > > > ... As I said, I know what an inertial coordinate system is. You very > > clearly do NOT.... > > Agnosco veteris vestigia flamma bellum. > > It is at this point that I recall with lingering contempt all the times > I've ever heard people say, "It's only semantics!" In case you don't > know, that word refers, both in comparative and formal linguistics, to > the study of what statements *actually mean*. > > And that's important here. > > If by some physics-related utterance you mean something different from > what people who study physics mean by those same words, then it is > utterly pointless for you to try to hold any sort of meaningful > discussion with them. > > In science, engineering or mathematics, in law, in medicine, in any > profession, people *agree very precisely on what words mean* because it > is important that when they use those words they can be certain that > they evoke the same concept in the mind of the listener as in that of > the speaker. > > If you don't learn what the words mean, you're lost. > > Do you *like* being lost? > > -- > Goat I'm not "lost." Although we do not speak the same language, I can decipher enough of what is being said here to determine where people are wrong. They cannot tell the difference between what actually happens in an experiment such as with the radar guns (i.e., reality) and what happens in a mathematical model that does not represent reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pimncd1mclvdbu569bmdd4rf2pv8cn7hc0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #455238 |
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 07:25:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: > I'm not "lost"... Although we do not speak the same language.... Read that back to yourself. [sigh] You are, and so is this cause. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e981bfd-442f-482e-b009-a1daf32726fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455163 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:49:33 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > Einstein explains coordinate systems in great detail in "The Evolution > of Physics." That book was written by Leopold Infeld, who asked Einstein to let his name be listed as co-author to increase sales. (Infeld described how the book came to be written in his autobiography.) The book does not give any coherent definition of a coordinate system. The index listing for "co-ordinate system" points to page 155, which says "the earth is our co-ordinate system". It's no wonder that people like you become so confused. The earth is not a coordinate system. None of the other quote you cited defines a coordinate system, they merely try to convey (in a clumsy way) the difference between an inertial coordinate system and other coordinate systems, but this can't meaning anything to you at all until you know what a coordinate system is - which you do not. > Two objects such as a police radar gun and a speeding car can be in > the SAME coordinate system - the coordinate system called "Main Street" > or "Planet Earth." Of course, but the Earth is moving at high speed around the Sun, and the surface of the Earth (including Main Street) is rotating at high speed around the center of the Earth, so you've been caught in a blatant inconsistency, right? If you treat either the Earth or Main street as being "at rest" you are committing the very crime that you routinely accuse others of committing, i.e., pretending that a moving object is at rest. But this actually makes perfect sense. Every object is at rest in terms of a coordinate system in which it is at rest. There is no pretending here. This is tautologically true. To deny it would be blatantly illogical and intellectually dishonest. > In your fantasy world it is POSSIBLE for the speeding car to actually > be stationary as the earth moves and the cop on the sidewalk with the > radar gun moves with the earth. That is NOT possible except in your > fantasies. But Ed, it is certainly possible for the cop on the sidewalk to be moving faster, in terms of the Sun's reference frame (or in terms of the isotropic CMBR reference frame), than the "speeding car", and this is sufficient to demolish your claims. Why do you insist that the cop must be regarded as stationary when he is quite likely moving faster than the car, and when you yourself admit that the cop is not stationary other than in the same tautological sense that every object is stationary, i.e., stationary in coordinates in which it is stationary. It's utterly illogical to deny this. All the examples you cite simply prove my point, which is that every object is at rest in terms of some coordinate system. This is self-evident. Now, this doesn't mean that we are obligated to use any particular coordinate system. If you want to use a system in which Main Street is at rest, feel free. But the proposition that claim is stupid, is a proposition about the speed of light in terms of relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. Everything you've said so far just comes down to the absurd claim that there is no such thing as relatively moving inertial coordinate systems. You'll never make any progress until you admit that relatively moving systems of inertial coordinate systems exist. (They are discussed extensively even in Infeld's dumb book, so you have no excuse for claiming they don't exist.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dec1fc72-9598-4b55-959d-db9764aa2732@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455198 |
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:14:45 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:49:33 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Einstein explains coordinate systems in great detail in "The Evolution > > of Physics." > > That book was written by Leopold Infeld, who asked Einstein to let his name be listed as co-author to increase sales. (Infeld described how the book came to be written in his autobiography.) The book does not give any coherent definition of a coordinate system. The index listing for "co-ordinate system" points to page 155, which says "the earth is our co-ordinate system". It's no wonder that people like you become so confused. The earth is not a coordinate system. None of the other quote you cited defines a coordinate system, they merely try to convey (in a clumsy way) the difference between an inertial coordinate system and other coordinate systems, but this can't meaning anything to you at all until you know what a coordinate system is - which you do not. > > > Two objects such as a police radar gun and a speeding car can be in > > the SAME coordinate system - the coordinate system called "Main Street" > > or "Planet Earth." > > Of course, but the Earth is moving at high speed around the Sun, and the surface of the Earth (including Main Street) is rotating at high speed around the center of the Earth, so you've been caught in a blatant inconsistency, right? If you treat either the Earth or Main street as being "at rest" you are committing the very crime that you routinely accuse others of committing, i.e., pretending that a moving object is at rest. But this actually makes perfect sense. Every object is at rest in terms of a coordinate system in which it is at rest. There is no pretending here. This is tautologically true. To deny it would be blatantly illogical and intellectually dishonest. > > > In your fantasy world it is POSSIBLE for the speeding car to actually > > be stationary as the earth moves and the cop on the sidewalk with the > > radar gun moves with the earth. That is NOT possible except in your > > fantasies. > > But Ed, it is certainly possible for the cop on the sidewalk to be moving faster, in terms of the Sun's reference frame (or in terms of the isotropic CMBR reference frame), than the "speeding car", and this is sufficient to demolish your claims. Why do you insist that the cop must be regarded as stationary when he is quite likely moving faster than the car, and when you yourself admit that the cop is not stationary other than in the same tautological sense that every object is stationary, i.e., stationary in coordinates in which it is stationary. It's utterly illogical to deny this. > > All the examples you cite simply prove my point, which is that every object is at rest in terms of some coordinate system. This is self-evident. Now, this doesn't mean that we are obligated to use any particular coordinate system. If you want to use a system in which Main Street is at rest, feel free. But the proposition that claim is stupid, is a proposition about the speed of light in terms of relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. Everything you've said so far just comes down to the absurd claim that there is no such thing as relatively moving inertial coordinate systems. > > You'll never make any progress until you admit that relatively moving systems of inertial coordinate systems exist. (They are discussed extensively even in Infeld's dumb book, so you have no excuse for claiming they don't exist.) Okay, you fantasize that Einstein's book did not represent what Einstein believed because it was written in English by his co-author. That is yet another opinion looking for an opinion vs opinion response. As Richard Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.: So, let's focus on the radar gun experiment. Please answer this question: The radar gun emits pulses at a frequency of 1,500,000,000 Hz. The pulses that come back from the speeding car are at a frequency of 1,500,000,150 Hz. The baseball problem is similar, except that the pulses that come back from the baseball are at a frequency of say 1,500,000,120 Hz. The question: What PHYSICALLY happened to cause the pulses to return at a higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be77cdbc-47d7-4357-a340-f73895ef283a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455242 |
Eduardo Del Lago prophesied So, let's focus on the radar gun experiment. Please answer this question: No ....... YOU need to study basic physics https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6cce93e-d741-47a9-9413-0760eec4cc5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455242 |
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 7:32:01 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >> You'll never make any progress until you admit that relatively >> moving systems of inertial coordinate systems exist. As always, you didn't even attempt to respond to the substantive point, but this remains the key point: It is self-evident that relatively moving systems of coordinates exist (you yourself have invoked them in your comments), and yet you continue to deny they exist. Just as a sign of good faith, could you simply acknowledge that two relatively moving people can each construct coordinate systems in which they themselves are stationary and the other is moving? Remember, the proposition you claim is false refers explicitly to the speed of light in relatively moving systems of coordinates. You can't even understand what this proposition means if you don't understand relatively moving systems of coordinates. > Okay, you fantasize that Einstein's book did not represent what > Einstein believed because it was written in English by his co-author. No, I'm just cautioning you that the book you are using as the bible for relativity was not written by Einstein, it was written by Infeld, as explained in Infeld's autobiography. Einstein himself published over a dozen expositions of relativity, including two books, and those expositions bear no resemblance at all to the exposition written by Infeld. The differences are not just stylistic, they are fundamental. You're perfectly free to go on using that low-quality Infeld book and quoting it as if it was Einstein's words (if you don't care how it affects your credibility), but if you really want to know what Einstein thought on the subject, you would be better advised to read some of the many expositions actually written by Einstein. > So, let's focus on the radar gun experiment. Please answer this question: > The radar gun emits pulses at a frequency of 1,500,000,000 Hz. The pulses > that come back from the speeding car are at a frequency of 1,500,000,150 Hz. > The question: What PHYSICALLY happened to cause the pulses to return at a > higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted? That's easy. The distance between the gun and the car is decreasing, so each pulse travels (at c) a shorter distance and therefore takes less time to make the round trip. As a result, the time between arrivals of the reflected pulses is less than the time between emissions. We get exactly the same answer if we work in the rest frame of the gun or the rest frame of the car. This is called the Doppler effect. To the first order, it works both in relativistic and pre-relativistic physics. (There is a very slight difference in the predicted Doppler shift according to special relativity compared with classical physics, but the difference is second order, too small to be measured by an ordinary radar gun.) Any other questions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33b32ca7-536e-4ad7-a7e9-82612a131555@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455267 |
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:21:45 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 7:32:01 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > >> You'll never make any progress until you admit that relatively > >> moving systems of inertial coordinate systems exist. > > As always, you didn't even attempt to respond to the substantive point, but this remains the key point: It is self-evident that relatively moving systems of coordinates exist (you yourself have invoked them in your comments), and yet you continue to deny they exist. I'm trying to discuss science and what happens in OUR universe, not mathematics and some PURELY HYPOTHETICAL situation. In OUR universe, a relatively moving system of coordinates would be a point on earth moving relative to a point on the moon. NEITHER point is stationary. In a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, one or the other point is IMAGINED to be stationary. > > Just as a sign of good faith, could you simply acknowledge that two relatively moving people can each construct coordinate systems in which they themselves are stationary and the other is moving? People can dream up all sorts of nonsense. There is probably no limit to nonsense. > Remember, the proposition you claim is false refers explicitly to the speed of light in relatively moving systems of coordinates. You can't even understand what this proposition means if you don't understand relatively moving systems of coordinates. I understand what "hypothetical" means. I'm just trying to focus on REAL SITUATIONS like a cop using a radar gun to measure the speed of an oncoming car. > > > Okay, you fantasize that Einstein's book did not represent what > > Einstein believed because it was written in English by his co-author. > > No, I'm just cautioning you that the book you are using as the bible for relativity was not written by Einstein, it was written by Infeld, as explained in Infeld's autobiography. Einstein himself published over a dozen expositions of relativity, including two books, and those expositions bear no resemblance at all to the exposition written by Infeld. The differences are not just stylistic, they are fundamental. You're perfectly free to go on using that low-quality Infeld book and quoting it as if it was Einstein's words (if you don't care how it affects your credibility), but if you really want to know what Einstein thought on the subject, you would be better advised to read some of the many expositions actually written by Einstein. I've got other books written by Einstein, but he wrote them in German and they were then translated into English. So, you'll argue that they aren't Einstein's words, they're the translator's. If you read any of the books where Einstein writes about simultaneous lightning strikes ahead of and behind a moving train, they all state that someone on the train will see the lightning strike at the front of the train first and the lightning strike at the rear of the train later. That is because the movement of the observer on the train affects when the strikes are seen. The light from the strike up front arrives at c+v, where v is the speed of the train, and the light from the strike behind arrives at c-v, because the light had to catch up with the train. It's on page 21 of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein. If I had the time I could probably find other examples. > > > So, let's focus on the radar gun experiment. Please answer this question: > > The radar gun emits pulses at a frequency of 1,500,000,000 Hz. The pulses > > that come back from the speeding car are at a frequency of 1,500,000,150 Hz. > > The question: What PHYSICALLY happened to cause the pulses to return at a > > higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted? > > That's easy. The distance between the gun and the car is decreasing, so each pulse travels (at c) a shorter distance and therefore takes less time to make the round trip. As a result, the time between arrivals of the reflected pulses is less than the time between emissions. We get exactly the same answer if we work in the rest frame of the gun or the rest frame of the car. But WHY does it take less time? It takes less time because the velocity of the car (v) decreases the distance each succeeding pulse must travel at c. Each pulse therefore arrives at c+v. You get the same answer if the car is "stationary" and the gun is moving because the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. Light still travels at c. But with each pulse the gun gets closer to the car. So, the pulses still arrive at c+v. However, I see now it wasn't a good question. The radar gun does not measure WAVELENGTH. If the car is moving toward the gun, the WAVELENGTH of each photon should be measured to be shorter, because it arrives at c+v. If the gun is moving toward the car, however, the WAVELENGTH will NOT change because the gun emits light at the same wavelength whether it is moving or not. > > This is called the Doppler effect. To the first order, it works both in relativistic and pre-relativistic physics. (There is a very slight difference in the predicted Doppler shift according to special relativity compared with classical physics, but the difference is second order, too small to be measured by an ordinary radar gun.) > > Any other questions? No, I guess I need to devise a better question to show that light arrives at c+v and c-v for a moving observer. It would probably have to use wavelength, rather than frequency. Vogel and Scheiner's experiments would how that the wavelength of starlight changes when the earth is moving toward or away from the star, but I can't find a copy of their paper "The Determination of Radial Velocities of Stars by Spectrographic Observation". Thanks. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <448e667d-3f53-4cc9-a4b8-be004944d6bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455293 |
EdTard prophesied I'm trying to discuss science and what happens in OUR universe, not mathematics Troll Cretin Incurable
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fda60b5e-3a84-4ee2-ac0d-9d04b1fc69f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455293 |
El lunes, 9 de abril de 2018, 17:58:42 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
>
> No, I guess I need to devise a better question to show that light arrives at c+v and c-v for a moving observer. It would probably have to use wavelength, rather than frequency.
>
Using wavelength makes not a difference, as wavelength λ = c/f.
Speed guns use Doppler radar to perform speed measurements.
Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and
receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same
signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called
the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the
frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the
transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of
the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving
away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can
calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced. This
speed is given by the following equation:
v = (Δf/f)(c/2)
where c is the speed of light, f is the emitted frequency of the radio waves and
Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and
those received back by the gun. This equation holds precisely only when object
speeds are low compared to that of light, but in everyday situations, this is
the case and the velocity of an object is directly proportional to this
difference in frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9bd4f8d-5180-4dbb-9f44-68e3280f658c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455296 |
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 9 de abril de 2018, 17:58:42 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > No, I guess I need to devise a better question to show that light arrives at c+v and c-v for a moving observer. It would probably have to use wavelength, rather than frequency. > > > > Using wavelength makes not a difference, as wavelength λ = c/f. > > Speed guns use Doppler radar to perform speed measurements. > > Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and > receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same > signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called > the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the > frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the > transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of > the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving > away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can > calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced. This > speed is given by the following equation: > > v = (Δf/f)(c/2) > > where c is the speed of light, f is the emitted frequency of the radio waves and > Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and > those received back by the gun. This equation holds precisely only when object > speeds are low compared to that of light, but in everyday situations, this is > the case and the velocity of an object is directly proportional to this > difference in frequency. The problem is: Light consists of photons, not waves. A radar gun sends out 1,500,000,000 pulses (or clusters) of photons per second. Each pulse (or cluster) of photons travels at the speed of light. But what is each photon's WAVELENGTH? I got the pulse rate from here: http://mb-soft.com/public/radar.html That article does not contain the word "wavelength." I need to do more research and pose a better question. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pagmvm$1rab$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455303 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El lunes, 9 de abril de 2018, 17:58:42 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: >> >>> >>> No, I guess I need to devise a better question to show that light >>> arrives at c+v and c-v for a moving observer. It would probably have >>> to use wavelength, rather than frequency. >>> >> >> Using wavelength makes not a difference, as wavelength λ = c/f. >> >> Speed guns use Doppler radar to perform speed measurements. >> >> Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and >> receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same >> signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called >> the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the >> frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the >> transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of >> the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving >> away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can >> calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced. This >> speed is given by the following equation: >> >> v = (Δf/f)(c/2) >> >> where c is the speed of light, f is the emitted frequency of the radio waves and >> Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and >> those received back by the gun. This equation holds precisely only when object >> speeds are low compared to that of light, but in everyday situations, this is >> the case and the velocity of an object is directly proportional to this >> difference in frequency. > > The problem is: Light consists of photons, not waves. A radar gun sends > out 1,500,000,000 pulses (or clusters) of photons per second. Each pulse > (or cluster) of photons travels at the speed of light. But what is each > photon's WAVELENGTH? > > I got the pulse rate from here: http://mb-soft.com/public/radar.html > > That article does not contain the word "wavelength." Well, it does contain the word “frequency”, and they make it clear this is the frequency each photon has, and this does NOT refer to the rate that photons are emitted or the rate that photons are received. So while you’re pondering how a single photon can have a wavelength, also ponder how a single photon can have a frequency. When you do that, you might stand a chance of setting aside your simplistic view of what a photon is. It’s not a little B.B. > > I need to do more research and pose a better question. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e04e3bf-b551-4aeb-87bf-388f54e01f7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455303 |
EdTard prophesied I need to do more research Eduardo Del Lago No.... you need to learn the basics of physics https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web