Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 276 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:02 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:14 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:16 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:38 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 21:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 19:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:56 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:32 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 10:46 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 10:38 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Bilového Hlumu <zbuuz@nwtwzwz.lb> - 2017-06-10 18:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:42 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 21:28 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:06 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 06:25 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 06:34 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 16:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 17:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:44 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 08:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 16:18 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 01:58 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 07:46 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-25 01:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 00:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 14:37 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:12 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 06:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 01:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 15:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 00:22 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 03:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:00 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 22:56 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-11 04:42 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 16:34 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 12:57 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 13:03 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:41 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 15:30 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:38 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 10:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:24 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 11:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 03:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:50 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:20 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:48 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 11:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 16:00 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 16:08 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-15 17:57 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 19:14 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 02:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 02:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 23:18 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 17:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-16 21:06 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:41 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 22:46 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-12 11:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:51 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 15:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:12 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 11:32 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 19:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 13:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:13 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:52 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-14 15:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 09:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 16:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-16 15:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:33 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-06-09 08:28 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:50 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 17:23 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 11:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:49 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-10 21:13 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 13:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-11 21:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 18:53 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-12 21:51 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-14 21:57 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-14 22:30 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:31 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 00:04 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:07 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-16 04:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-16 09:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-27 19:43 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-28 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-28 03:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-28 15:54 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-29 09:43 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-29 12:29 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-01 09:47 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-02 11:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 03:33 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> - 2017-07-02 10:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-02 14:31 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:34 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 20:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 09:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 15:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 00:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 12:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 20:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 03:57 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:38 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-04 04:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 22:11 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 08:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 14:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-05 23:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 09:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 14:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 22:20 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-07 16:16 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 15:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-08 07:35 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 14:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 14:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 16:53 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-09 19:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 20:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> - 2017-07-13 13:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-11 23:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-15 11:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 03:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 13:55 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:42 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 14:49 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 05:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:33 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 20:18 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 09:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 16:25 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 21:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:45 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:05 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-20 08:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-20 22:22 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-21 14:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-21 15:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 08:53 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-22 14:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-12 17:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 17:56 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:46 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:41 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-15 21:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. khrapko_ri@hotmail.com - 2017-06-11 05:24 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 11:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohkr8r$32m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422290 |
On 12/06/17 10:22, Michael Moroney was apparently still ignorant of the fact that he has been plonked. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohl2e0$vf9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422297 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/06/17 10:22, Michael Moroney was apparently still ignorant of the >fact that he has been plonked. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the fourth post by you in response to my post (check the References: field) after allegedly plonking me the first time, and this is third time you have allegedly plonked me, Ralph. Ralph, you are truly ignorant of what would happen if you really did plonk me, aren't you. Apparently, you just can't resist reading my posts, Ralph and you'll never plonk me for real, will you, Mr. Rabbidge. Will you reply to this post as well, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 20:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohlq0t$1fkc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422302 |
On 12/06/17 13:39, Michael Moron-y offered for sale shares in the Michael Moron-y Country Shithouse, situated on the far northern coast of Ireland. So far nobody has accepted the offer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmcgv$pcv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422345 |
I wrote: >>Ralph, you are truly ignorant of what would happen if you really did plonk >>me, aren't you. Apparently, you just can't resist reading my posts, Ralph >>and you'll never plonk me for real, will you, Mr. Rabbidge. Will you >>reply to this post as well, Ralph? "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/06/17 13:39, Michael Moron-y offered for sale shares in the >Michael Moron-y Country Shithouse, situated on the far northern coast of >Ireland. So far nobody has accepted the offer. Thanks for proving my point, Ralph! Despite your repeated claims of plonking me, you still *can't resist* reading my responses to you, and you *can't resist* seeing how I repeatedly prove you wrong. Also, you *can't resist* responding, even if you have nothing to counter where I prove you wrong, so all you have is either abuse (such as the post I am responding to) or a fake "plonk" claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohmngs$176d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422364 |
On 6/12/17 10:38 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thanks for proving my point, Ralph! Despite your repeated claims of plonking > me, you still*can't resist* reading my responses to you, and you *can't > resist* seeing how I repeatedly prove you wrong. Also, you*can't resist* > responding, even if you have nothing to counter where I prove you wrong, so > all you have is either abuse (such as the post I am responding to) or a fake > "plonk" claim. I think it's clear that Ralph has no care either way about whether he tells lies habitually. To him, the indignity doesn't matter a whit. All that matters is stirring the pot and provoking a response, no matter what is entailed in doing that. Don't attempt to shame the shameless. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 05:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmo8v$18p4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422364 |
On 13/06/17 01:38, Michael Moron-y wrote "I am proud of my country shithouse in the far north of Ireland. It consists of a hole in the ground with a little tin shed over it. Best of all I love the smell and the fact that it has my name on it. Building my shithouse is the best thing I have ever done!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 20:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohghi1$1o7m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422059 |
On 10/06/17 00:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> That has never been proved. Precession is chaotic. That Mercury business >> is a farce. > > No, Henry, Mercury has a detectable 43 seconds per century deviation from > Newtonian mechanics. This is detectable above the chaotic contributions > of the other planets, and this has been known for a couple of centuries. Chaotic systems like Mercury's orbit cannot be predicted. It might even go backwards on occasions. >> Even the Newtonian laws of mechanics (let alone the law >>> of gravity) don't work perfectly well for ordinary matter. > > That's right, Henry, because we can detect deviations from Newtonian mechanics > caused by GR! Glad you finally understand! absolute crap....That kind of argument might have fooled people in 1905 but it doesn't any more. >> What proof do you have...none! > > Except for measurements, of course. all faked....and published in dingleberry owned journals. >> You're just quoting your silly religion. > > Henry, it is you who has a religion of One, the Religion of Dirty BaThWater. > Henry, like other religions who believe in such things as elephant-headed > gods, being awarded virgins for blowing up infidels and virgins giving > birth, your personal religion believes in things that go totally counter to > science, such as light moving at c+v and other silly anti-science crap, Henry. > > So Henry, to join your religion, does one have to get baptized in a tub > full of DirtyBaThWater? In addition to denying science, of course. Moron-y, scream as much as you like but it is quite obvious from variable star investigations that light moves at c+v throughout space. Einstein was wrong and so is most of modern astronomy. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 22:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4KdnfVoZv7xIqHEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422141 |
On 6/10/17 6/10/17 5:28 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Chaotic systems like Mercury's orbit cannot be predicted. This is just not true, as long as one stays much less than the Lyapunov time of the system; for this it is about 5 million years. Of course you have already demonstrated that you do not know what a chaotic system actually is, or how one might analyze them. >> Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the >> solar system is on the order of 5 million years. > > The positions of the planets changes quite dramatically even in twenty years... A sensible person, when confronted with a term that they do not know, such as "Lyapunov time", would spend a minute or two with Google to find out what it means. You, however, prefer to just make something up and pretend it is true. That is the most ANTI-SCIENTIFIC approach I have ever seen. And also the stupidest. That is why I only respond to you when I think your outrageously incorrect statements provide an educational opportunity for OTHERS who follow this newsgroup. You have proven yourself to be completely uneducable. >> [a mention of errorbars] > Tom can always run behind his 'error bars' when he is in trouble. CLEARLY you are not a scientist. Unlike you, competent scientists know that no measurement is perfect, and that errorbars are the way we quantify how accurately a measured quantity is known. One does not "run behind" them; they are an ESSENTIAL part of modern physics, as they represent the quality of knowledge. As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 14:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohigsf$ji6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422218 |
On 11/06/17 13:56, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/10/17 6/10/17 5:28 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >>> Yes, the planetary orbits are chaotic, but the Lyapunov time for the >>> solar system is on the order of 5 million years. >> >> The positions of the planets changes quite dramatically even in twenty >> years... > > A sensible person, when confronted with a term that they do not know, > such as "Lyapunov time", would spend a minute or two with Google to find > out what it means. You, however, prefer to just make something up and > pretend it is true. That is the most ANTI-SCIENTIFIC approach I have > ever seen. And also the stupidest. The Lyapunov time for the solar system has little to do with the Lyapunov time for Mercury's precession. Chaotic systems can switch quite rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another. You have little idea of the factors that are responsible for planetary precession anyway. > That is why I only respond to you when I think your outrageously > incorrect statements provide an educational opportunity for > OTHERS who follow this newsgroup. You have proven yourself to be > completely uneducable. > >>> [a mention of errorbars] >> Tom can always run behind his 'error bars' when he is in trouble. > > CLEARLY you are not a scientist. Unlike you, competent scientists know > that no measurement is perfect, and that errorbars are the way we > quantify how accurately a measured quantity is known. One does not "run > behind" them; they are an ESSENTIAL part of modern physics, as they > represent the quality of knowledge. Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in general...they are more interested in concepts and performing experiments that give black or white answers. No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine tasks of measuring things. > As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your > COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? After some of your recent statements, it is obvious who the ignorant one is. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohja3f$1nnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422221 |
HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: . > > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > experiments that give black or white answers. > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > tasks of measuring things. LOL. What planet do you live on, Henry? Are you trying to conjure it up by repetitive incantation of How Henry Wants Things to Be? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 04:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ef9cbc4-ca44-4411-a7a0-fca0f7428753@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422239 |
W dniu niedziela, 11 czerwca 2017 13:38:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > . > > > > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > > experiments that give black or white answers. > > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > > tasks of measuring things. > > LOL. What planet do you live on, Henry? Ask one of your moronic gurus how to define their moronic interval.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 05:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmoaq$18p4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422239 |
On 11/06/17 21:38, Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > . >> >> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in >> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing >> experiments that give black or white answers. >> No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine >> tasks of measuring things. > > LOL. What planet do you live on, Henry? > Are you trying to conjure it up by repetitive incantation of How Henry > Wants Things to Be? Bodkin, when was the last time you worked in a physics lab?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 16:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3989438.LvFx2qVVIh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422221 |
wrote: > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > experiments that give black or white answers. > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > tasks of measuring things. “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding out what it means. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <488a6e6f-82eb-4635-a37a-087884695ace@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422252 |
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > wrote: > > > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > > experiments that give black or white answers. > > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > > tasks of measuring things. > > “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding out > what it means. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. xxein: For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A team. Call it a binary choice for convenience. But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet. To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they tell the B team to f*** off and die or what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7215a8c0-f1be-4922-b59b-d20d3b3a9d74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422269 |
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-4, xxei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > wrote: > > > > > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > > > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > > > experiments that give black or white answers. > > > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > > > tasks of measuring things. > > > > “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding out > > what it means. > > > > -- > > PointedEars > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > xxein: For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A team. Call it a binary choice for convenience. But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet. To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they tell the B team to f*** off and die or what? xxein: Thx Paul. You supplied the words I should have used. So? Would the A team consider the B team 'test' as trivial and pointless?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1651030.tdWV9SEqCh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422270 |
xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-4, xxei...@gmail.com wrote: >> xxein: For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups >> physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team >> for short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of >> the B team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined >> by the A team. Call it a binary choice for convenience. But let this >> deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model of GR that >> has not been verified by experiment yet. To complicate matters, the B >> team must get permission, funding or what have you from the A team to >> perform the experiment that will verify or refute the A team conjecture. >> So, what would the A team do? Will they tell the B team to f*** off and >> die or what? > > xxein: Thx Paul. You supplied the words I should have used. > So? Would the A team consider the B team 'test' as trivial and pointless? Who is “Paul”? Are you talking to yourself now? Do you even have the slightest idea what you are doing? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4273109.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422269 |
xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: It is called “attribution _line_”, not attribution novel. >> wrote: >> > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in >> > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing >> > experiments that give black or white answers. >> > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine >> > tasks of measuring things. >> “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding >> out what it means. >> >> [sig] It is inappropriate to quote Usenet signatures without referring to their content. > xxein: This is _not_ a chat room. And an e-mail address is _not_ a name. > For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups > physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for > short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B > team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A > team. The “A team” would probably be thrilled as the “B team” has given them more work to do. > Call it a binary choice for convenience. Science simply does not work this way. There are always uncertainties. Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth about anything (or everything) is either not a scientist or is a scientist who has been misunderstood. > But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model > of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet. Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories. > To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what > have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or > refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they > tell the B team to f*** off and die or what? Obviously you have no clue about science and scientists. Scientists may disagree on any number of issues, and they may compete for funding, but by- and-large there is a scientific *community* where of which all members are seeking the common goal to arrive at the *best* possible theories. The nature of science is critical thought, a deep *scepticism*: science is *a process* where knowledge is continuously *questioned*, thereby created, improved and enriched. As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever occurs. In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to be a very strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know whether they are on the right track with their theory or only wasting their precious time with it. If you had paid more attention to the scientific process – which is documented *in public* after all – instead of conjuring up conspiracy theories, you would have realized all of that already. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac7962bf-7afa-40af-9cd5-06428b2a1773@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422273 |
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 4:40:32 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > wrote: > > It is called “attribution _line_”, not attribution novel. > > >> wrote: > >> > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > >> > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > >> > experiments that give black or white answers. > >> > No doubt the less gifted of our profession are given the more routine > >> > tasks of measuring things. > >> “5 sigma”. I strongly suggest that you are silent while you are finding > >> out what it means. > >> > >> [sig] > > It is inappropriate to quote Usenet signatures without referring to their > content. > > > xxein: > > This is _not_ a chat room. And an e-mail address is _not_ a name. > > > For the knowledgeable. I am curious. Let's call your two groups > > physicists theorists and experimentalists or the A team and the B team for > > short if we can. I'd like to know what would happen if a member of the B > > team called into question a deduction-only consequence determined by the A > > team. > > The “A team” would probably be thrilled as the “B team” has given them more > work to do. > > > Call it a binary choice for convenience. > > Science simply does not work this way. There are always uncertainties. > Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth about anything (or everything) > is either not a scientist or is a scientist who has been misunderstood. > > > But let this deduction be a 'natural' consequence of the theory and model > > of GR that has not been verified by experiment yet. > > Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories. > > > To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what > > have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or > > refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they > > tell the B team to f*** off and die or what? > > Obviously you have no clue about science and scientists. Scientists may > disagree on any number of issues, and they may compete for funding, but by- > and-large there is a scientific *community* where of which all members are > seeking the common goal to arrive at the *best* possible theories. The > nature of science is critical thought, a deep *scepticism*: science is *a > process* where knowledge is continuously *questioned*, thereby created, > improved and enriched. > > As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a > theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever occurs. > In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to be a very > strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know whether they are on > the right track with their theory or only wasting their precious time with > it. > > If you had paid more attention to the scientific process – which is > documented *in public* after all – instead of conjuring up conspiracy > theories, you would have realized all of that already. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. xxein: Don't get 'testy' with me. It was only an ifff. BUT I'll bet my dollar to your doughnut that I could pose a question of/to GR that you would think has been amply deduced and answered and you would consider it trivial and pointless. While being deduced and seemingly the only possible answer to be compliant to the theory and its model, in experiment it might prove to be non-compliant. Are you saying that science would jump at the chance to experiment and find out if it could be falsified? I don't find that to be true. Baez defends the GR answer and may think it's pointless and trivial. Will thinks it's just a routine question by misunderstanding it. The jury may still be out with Susskind as he may not have received and considered it yet. My small sampling seems to disagree with your expectations. Perhaps you might suggest another avenue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 01:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1909991.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422282 |
It is also inappropriate to quote everything. Get out of your cave, Googlodyte, and learn to post. xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > BUT I'll bet my dollar to your doughnut that I could pose a question of/to > GR that you would think has been amply deduced and answered and you would > consider it trivial and pointless. That would carry some weight if you knew what you are talking about, which you clearly do not. > […] > Are you saying that science would jump at the chance to experiment and > find out if it could be falsified? _Theories_ are falsified by experiments, not experiments by other experiments. > [conspiracy theories] This is not only nonsense, it is also off-topic here. Please go away. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 10:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohkoqq$ip$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422273 |
On 12/06/17 06:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > > Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories. I would not agree with that. I someone gets a novel idea, the first thing they want to do is test it. >> To complicate matters, the B team must get permission, funding or what >> have you from the A team to perform the experiment that will verify or >> refute the A team conjecture. So, what would the A team do? Will they >> tell the B team to f*** off and die or what? > > Obviously you have no clue about science and scientists. Scientists may > disagree on any number of issues, and they may compete for funding, but by- > and-large there is a scientific *community* where of which all members are > seeking the common goal to arrive at the *best* possible theories. The > nature of science is critical thought, a deep *scepticism*: science is *a > process* where knowledge is continuously *questioned*, thereby created, > improved and enriched. > > As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a > theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever occurs. > In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to be a very > strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know whether they are on > the right track with their theory or only wasting their precious time with > it. correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has been anywhere near the number from experimentalists. Maybe new concepts emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but no matter where they come from or how credible they are, the immediate goal will be to test them. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web