Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369426 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-09 01:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-11 16:44 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-09 01:04 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 01:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 06:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 11:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-09 21:07 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 11:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 20:53 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 06:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:45 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 16:28 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 06:45 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 15:57 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 15:04 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 10:00 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 15:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 17:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 11:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:05 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:20 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 19:07 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:19 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 20:54 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:02 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-09 18:49 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 18:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:37 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-10 18:37 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-10 19:24 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:06 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 11:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 12:28 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:13 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 15:21 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-11 21:03 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-12 09:29 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-12 20:40 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-12 18:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 12:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 15:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-13 18:54 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-13 13:05 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 00:33 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-14 16:49 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 19:34 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 19:59 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:17 +0000
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
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-14 10:25 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:14 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 13:31 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 16:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:39 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 21:04 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-23 21:49 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 00:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 01:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 01:36 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 02:52 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 11:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 04:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 12:36 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 05:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 18:38 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-24 20:47 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 15:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 17:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 17:28 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 18:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:00 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-27 12:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:37 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:17 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 18:17 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-28 18:27 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:50 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 13:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:44 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 17:49 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 18:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 17:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:47 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 20:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 13:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:39 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:02 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:14 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 10:57 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:08 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-01 14:14 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:09 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:52 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-30 17:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 04:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:33 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 21:47 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 14:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:12 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:25 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 06:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:57 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 08:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 17:50 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 22:28 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 14:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-03 16:20 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 08:23 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:21 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:25 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-11 18:56 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-10 17:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:36 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-10 00:40 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-10 01:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:16 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-10 18:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-11 16:44 -0800
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n206u3$gi4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #369584 |
On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote: > > There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses INTRINSIC > energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n21m5b$pj2$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369694 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote: >> >> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. > > http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2193508.cGhqFm1Gjq@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #369769 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote: >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg > > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> 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 | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 18:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c05161c5-7044-48c6-a84e-3c28a2200c0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369814 |
W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 20:40:42 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > Henry Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote: > >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses > >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. > >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg > > > > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... > > That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a > well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> The Big Bang horde of nonsenses is just the pseudoscience. The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy... similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context. And in the second case: a lost of energy - dissipation, is a common fact, known for years. Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation' doesn't exist in any observation.. another naked idiocy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 22:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gkna4bhdelhjqiqj7nrfkg4dmskuco3sdi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369855 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:59:09 -0800 (PST), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 20:40:42 UTC+1 uzytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisal:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote:
>> >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>> >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>> >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>> >
>> > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>>
>> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a
>> well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
>
>The Big Bang horde of nonsenses is just the pseudoscience.
>
>The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
>similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.
But the change of distance as time passes
is clearly definite and real, as shown by the
velocity caused shift in spectral lines.
Learn a little astronomy.
>And in the second case: a lost of energy - dissipation,
>is a common fact, known for years.
The only ways that energy can dissipate
are well known and measured, objects moving
farther apart as time passes is one of them.
>Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
>doesn't exist in any observation..
>another naked idiocy.
It is a rational part of relative motion,
human observation is not able to perceive
all forms of relative motion, the Divergent
Matter model is needed to predict them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95b5a2c7-07e9-46f5-b6ea-c809a2b208da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369858 |
W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 04:58:58 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer > >The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy... > >similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context. > > But the change of distance as time passes > is clearly definite and real, as shown by the > velocity caused shift in spectral lines. > Learn a little astronomy. > The only ways that energy can dissipate > are well known and measured, objects moving > farther apart as time passes is one of them. In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved. > >Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation' > >doesn't exist in any observation.. > >another naked idiocy. > > It is a rational part of relative motion, > human observation is not able to perceive > all forms of relative motion, the Divergent > Matter model is needed to predict them. Yes. Your divergent pussy is very nice model. I'm not interested in any model, but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 15:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vqhc4bpi5i8ou8bmv5kfioj96cf04jftpn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369880 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:06:07 -0800 (PST), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu piatek, 13 listopada 2015 04:58:58 UTC+1 uzytkownik kefischer
>
>> >The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
>> >similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.
>>
>> But the change of distance as time passes
>> is clearly definite and real, as shown by the
>> velocity caused shift in spectral lines.
>> Learn a little astronomy.
>> The only ways that energy can dissipate
>> are well known and measured, objects moving
>> farther apart as time passes is one of them.
>
>In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved.
The Doppler effect is different for
observers moving differently, energy
in that case is reference system dependent.
>> >Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
>> >doesn't exist in any observation..
>> >another naked idiocy.
>>
>> It is a rational part of relative motion,
>> human observation is not able to perceive
>> all forms of relative motion, the Divergent
>> Matter model is needed to predict them.
>
>Yes. Your divergent is very nice model.
You seem stuck in the gutter.
>I'm not interested in any model,
>but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe.
But you haven't identified them, and
you seem to think there are absolutes.
The only certainty is that current
thought could be wrong tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 15:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62fe6954-89c6-4a3f-8c6d-6e0f98ad6f4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369882 |
W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 21:31:05 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer napisał: > >In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved. > > The Doppler effect is different for > observers moving differently, energy > in that case is reference system dependent. The energy is conserved. In the Doppler case you consume the emited enerygy in other time, ie, the power changes, but the energy is the same: E = Edt = inv. But indeed: due to the slow-down effect of a moving clock, you can measure a different energy quantity too; but you know about that, thus you should to correct that... similary the GPS is corrected. > >I'm not interested in any model, > >but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe. > > But you haven't identified them, and > you seem to think there are absolutes. > The only certainty is that current > thought could be wrong tomorrow. The classical science is indestructible. All the rest is a pseudoscience only - naive improvisations, like the flat Earth dogmat, next the geocentric great ideas, and now the relativity pseudogeometry, quantum fallacies, and the Big Bang idiocy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n25blg$oo8$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369814 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:40:34 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> >> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... > > That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, > a well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> Load of crap...I suppose you still believe that jesus christ's father never screwed his mother. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 00:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5244951.TQgHxuCeYj@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #369879 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:40:34 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... >> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, >> a well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> > > Load of crap... The theory that you are trying to revive here? Yes. The article documents that it has been experimentally falsified years ago already. > I suppose you still believe that jesus christ's father > never screwed his mother. Fascinating. What else do you suppose? PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 13:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n24jmv$qq2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #369769 |
On 12.11.2015 10:29, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote: >>> >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. >> >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg > > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... > Quite. But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n25bdp$oo8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369872 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. >>> >>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg >> >> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... >> >> > Quite. > But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings. How could anything exist for a billion years without changing? Light quanta are made of fields and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at very low pressure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 00:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1750793.4Ml76ff0Xg@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #369878 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. >>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg >>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class...... >> >> Quite. >> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings. > > How could anything exist for a billion years without changing? Why do you assume that this would be the case? > Light quanta are made of fields No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary excitations of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the other way around. > and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$ > behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at > very low pressure? Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big Bang? What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway? PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27omr$jpi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369898 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:33:25 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses >>>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. >>>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg >>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics >>>> class...... >>> >>> Quite. >>> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings. >> >> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing? > > Why do you assume that this would be the case? I don't know of anything that remains exactly the same for even ten years. >> Light quanta are made of fields > > No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary > excitations of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the > other way around. Excitations in what? The aether that Einstein's theory requires? Do you still believe in that? >> and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$ >> behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at >> very low pressure? > > Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big > Bang? > What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway? It is not the same as your continuous hot air discharge. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 19:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3966362.vosMEtJVS7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #369983 |
Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:33:25 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>>>>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>>>>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>>>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics
>>>>> class......
>>>> Quite.
>>>> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.
>>> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?
>> Why do you assume that this would be the case?
>
> I don't know of anything that remains exactly the same for even ten years.
OK then, what thing are you talking about that had to change in this case?
>>> Light quanta are made of fields
>>
>> No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary
>> excitations of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the
>> other way around.
>
> Excitations in what?
The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?)
> The aether that Einstein's theory requires?
Nonsense. Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special
(theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about
electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether. It even says so *on the
first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later
translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”):
| ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
|
| By A. Einstein
| June 30, 1905
|
| It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
| present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
| not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
| reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
| observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
| conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
| distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
| these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
| conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
| electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
| places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is
| stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the
| neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
| electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy,
| but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases
| discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those
| produced by the electric forces in the former case.
|
| 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 We will raise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
| “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
| the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
| Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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.
See:
<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
<http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf>
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)>
<http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/materials/special_theory_of_relativity.pdf>
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
And in general:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>
>>> and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$
>>> behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at
>>> very low pressure?
>>
>> Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big
>> Bang?
>> What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway?
>
> It is not the same as your continuous hot air discharge.
You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27vcl$5cs$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369999 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: >> Excitations in what? > > The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?) A field is just an epithet given to a phenomena in Math and Physics. Here its consistence is ample unknown. He was asking you "Excitation in what?" One way or another, are you a cretin or an almost not even half of an engineer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5133618.vqzRD92Tvy@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370001 |
Ty Knotts wrote: > W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Thomas > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: >>> Excitations in what? >> >> The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?) > > A field is just an epithet given to a phenomena in Math and Physics. Here > its consistence is ample unknown. He was asking you "Excitation in what?" > One way or another, are you a cretin or an almost not even half of an > engineer? ‘nym-shifting troll, the electromagnetic field is an observable, measurable reality. In fact, your trolling here depends on it because computers and the Internet would not work if it were not. Go read <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field> and shut up. *PLONK* F'up2 sci.physics PointedEars -- Two neutrinos go through a bar ... (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n284th$gsn$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370002 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: >>> The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?) >> >> A field is just an epithet given to a phenomena in Math and Physics. >> Here its consistence is ample unknown. He was asking you "Excitation in >> what?" >> One way or another, are you a cretin or an almost not even half of an >> engineer? > > ‘nym-shifting troll, the electromagnetic field is an observable, > measurable reality. That's why is been called a *phenomenon*, pointedHead. But the crystalline structure and the nature of it remains predominately UNKNOWN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f8978a2-ee52-47a3-84c6-2df1b034a2cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369999 |
W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' > > The aether that Einstein's theory requires? Yes. > Nonsense. Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special > (theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about > electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether. It even says so *on the > first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later > translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”): > > | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > | > | By A. Einstein > | June 30, 1905 > | > | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the > | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do > | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the > | reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The > | observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the > | conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp > | distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of > | these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > | conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an > | electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the > | places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is > | stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the > | neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > | electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, > | but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases > | discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those > | produced by the electric forces in the former case. > | > | 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 We will raise > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the > | “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with > | the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on > | Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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. Nice speech of an amateur... Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905! > See: > > <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/> > <http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf> > <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)> > <http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/materials/special_theory_of_relativity.pdf> > <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154> > > And in general: > > <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0> > <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0> Indeed, nice references for the mainstrem pseudoscience... but I can't see there the geocentric great ideas - you should include this!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <327fb3ca-4cb6-4ca4-9582-ef3acbf856b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370003 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' > > > > Nonsense. Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special > > (theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about > > electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether. It even says so *on the > > first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later > > translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”): > > > > | ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > > | > > | By A. Einstein > > | June 30, 1905 > > | > > | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the > > | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do > > | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the > > | reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The > > | observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the > > | conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp > > | distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of > > | these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > > | conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an > > | electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the > > | places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is > > | stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the > > | neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > > | electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, > > | but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases > > | discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those > > | produced by the electric forces in the former case. > > | > > | 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 We will raise > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > | this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the > > | “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > | introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with > > | the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > | emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > | and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on > > | Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. 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. > > Nice speech of an amateur... > Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905! You prove yourself to be an uneducated troll and an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web