Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:36 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:58 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:34 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-11 21:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 05:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:04 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:53 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 08:49 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:25 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:37 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 16:38 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 23:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 09:43 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:40 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 12:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 22:12 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 04:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 05:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 05:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 06:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-14 06:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:36 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-16 07:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-18 03:21 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:48 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:52 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-15 21:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:07 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-17 05:59 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 18:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-19 05:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-20 05:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-21 05:47 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:13 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-22 06:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:56 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-23 14:55 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-22 06:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 15:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:07 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 09:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 17:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 12:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 20:36 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 22:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:42 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:11 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:08 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:16 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 17:55 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-28 18:38 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-29 11:48 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:22 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-28 19:40 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-24 23:10 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-25 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:03 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:14 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-21 14:27 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 21:56 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:21 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 11:18 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 20:43 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 19:41 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 19:46 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 19:11 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 21:16 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:57 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 22:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:27 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-15 23:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 01:47 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 10:09 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 06:53 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 19:09 +0000
The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 21:12 +0100
Re: The speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-18 22:14 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-19 22:25 +0100
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 06:10 -0800
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:22 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-20 17:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-21 02:32 +0100
Re: The speed of light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 09:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 14:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-17 22:35 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:14 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:58 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 05:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 05:48 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 06:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:44 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:31 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 00:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 19:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 23:44 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 15:02 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-20 22:34 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 23:16 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 10:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-21 18:52 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:19 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 20:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 20:50 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:46 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-17 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e24218dc-cea7-4b3d-81f6-51a4ec3fb322@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373803 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:38:07 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > x/0 = infinity > > No, Ralph, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... > and you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero > > "... division by zero is undefined" Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as applied math is concerned, anything other than 0 is divided by 0 is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32623f92-c88d-4e15-9d9f-f0025719c3c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373805 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:30:44 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:38:07 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > > > x/0 = infinity > > > > No, Ralph, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... > > and you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero > > > > "... division by zero is undefined" > > Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as applied math is concerned, anything other than 0 is divided by 0 is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug> Which only goes to PROVE that as a mathematician you are a complete failure! Interesting that you snipped this part... " It's not. In arithmetic, as it is normally practiced, you can't divide by zero. The reason you can't do this is that 1/a=b is the same as ab=1. For the case a=0, we would need 0b=1. No such b is possible." Go ahead, KW, explain exactly why this is incorrect... if you can! Fvcking idiot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67e48c11-bdba-432b-9155-d2104a789fcc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373805 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:30:44 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:38:07 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > > > x/0 = infinity > > > > No, Ralph, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... > > and you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero > > > > "... division by zero is undefined" > > Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as applied math is concerned, anything other than 0 is divided by 0 is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug> I provided 3 links that show you and Ralph to be wrong, and I could have provided hundreds more... please provide your own links to support your own tenuous position, if you dare... but be prepared to fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 23:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4369269d-f478-49bf-a441-ae4efe64082d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373807 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:40:41 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as > > applied math is concerned, anything other than 0 is divided by 0 > > is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug> > > I provided 3 links that show you and Ralph to be wrong, and I could > have provided hundreds more... You are an amateur who has not done anything useful in real life --- either scientific or technological, and that is very certain from this episode of your blunders. <shrug> > please provide your own links to support your own tenuous position, > if you dare... but be prepared to fail. Fuck off, idiot! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 05:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f01c2eb6-9f4f-4deb-bc0e-ee7512bee043@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373808 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 12:17:03 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:40:41 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as > > > applied math is concerned, anything other than 0 is divided by 0 > > > is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug> > > > > I provided 3 links that show you and Ralph to be wrong, and I could > > have provided hundreds more... > > You are an amateur who has not done anything useful in real life --- either > scientific or technological, Which has nothing at all to do with mathematical theory. All it demonstrates is that K-dup routinely engages in personal attacks. > and that is very certain from this episode of your blunders. <shrug> Which K-dub asserts without anything to back it up. > > please provide your own links to support your own tenuous position, > > if you dare... but be prepared to fail. > > Fuck off, idiot! <shrug> Yep, K-dub has been cornered and refuses to admit that he is a mathematical retard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 09:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db4e36e0-c7b3-48f2-8856-fe958512d0ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373808 |
Looks to me like you are accepting defeat without a fight, a completely predictable outcome. You can't come up with a single link to support your claim, so you stoop to slinging vile insults. Not a good way to influence your audience, they might think badly of you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 10:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75taj$187n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373805 |
On 1/12/2016 7:30 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:38:07 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> x/0 = infinity >> >> No, Ralph, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... >> and you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero >> >> "... division by zero is undefined" > > Einstein dingleberries are whole bunch of idiots. As far as applied math is concerned, > anything other than 0 is divided by 0 is infinity. Fvcking idiot! <shrug> > If truly applied math says that, then applied math needs to be re-educated in basic math. But I don't believe that applied math really says that. I believe YOU say it, but you're an idiot with delusions of adequacy. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n765n0$1qmb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373803 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:38:03 -0800, pnalsing wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson (AKA > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) wrote: > >> x/0 = infinity > > No, Henry, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... and > you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero All nonsense. The correct statement is: For x>0, x/n ->infinity as n->0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 12:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9570e128-9630-4da5-a74e-33dc4ac0a81c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373837 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:40:37 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:38:03 -0800, pnalsing wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:44:24 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson (AKA > > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) wrote: > > > >> x/0 = infinity > > > > No, Henry, it is not. Even a freshman physics student knows this... and > > you claim to be the only qualified physicist on this forum? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero > > All nonsense. The correct statement is: > For x>0, x/n ->infinity as n->0. But Ralph, that is NOT what you stated, YOU said "x/0 = infinity", which is clearly incorrect. You just took advantage of a little time to verify this for yourself and then come back here and try to talk your way out of it. BZZZZZT! didn't work :>)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n77mso$1rh1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373858 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:02:48 -0800, pnalsing wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:40:37 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:38:03 -0800, pnalsing admitted to being an idiot...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f64e88f-a0a0-43f5-b7d7-db78cfb607da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373907 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:40:00 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:02:48 -0800, pnalsing wrote: >>> But Ralph, that is NOT what you stated, YOU said "x/0 = infinity", which is >>> clearly incorrect. You just took advantage of a little time to verify this for >>> yourself and then come back here and try to talk your way out of it. BZZZZZT! >>> didn't work :>) > > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:40:37 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:38:03 -0800, pnalsing admitted to being an > idiot... Great rejoinder, Ralph, without presenting a lick of evidence in your own position, you essentially run away... again! Run, Ralph, run...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5376765.hsLHNDJ2X7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #373781 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:06:18 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/12/2016 10:49 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >>> Ralph is completely rudderless without Andro... >> This is because physics is not his interest. Banter of a particular >> style is his interest. Now he has lost his banter partner and others are >> not willing to engage in a similar way, so there's little left for him >> here. > > Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any claim > that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is somehow > affected by itself. Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are not moving relative to each other. > How else could Einstein's silly claim be interpreted? It is not a silly claim, but a rather genial idea to assume that space and time are not fixed in order to reconcile Maxwell electrodynamics with the fact that according to all prior observations the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer of light and the light source. A theory, (the) special (theory of) relativity, that has been confirmed innumerable times, and falsified zero times, in the past 110 years. It is even improbable that you could post here if that theory were fundamentally flawed, because the technology that you are using to post here is based on theories that build on special relativity (i.e. require it to be correct). > What does it mean to say that "a moving clock runs slow"? It means that it runs *slower* relative to another clock that is *defined* to be stationary (keeps its distance and angle to the observer). To see that you only need to apply the Pythagorean theorem: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity> PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n73q8j$m59$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373799 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5376765.hsLHNDJ2X7@PointedEars.de... |Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer has |their own time. In imagination of an insane moron, only. > How else could Einstein's silly claim be interpreted? |It is not a silly claim, but a rather genial idea to assume that space and |time are not fixed in order to reconcile Maxwell electrodynamics with the Shooting own leg can look as a genial idea only for a moron. |A theory, (the) special (theory of) relativity, that has been confirmed |innumerable times A lie, common between relativistic morons. |, and falsified zero times, in the past 110 years. And another lie. As expected from a relativistic moron. |It is even improbable that you could post here if that theory were |fundamentally flawed, because the technology that you are using to post here |is based on theories that build on special relativity (i.e. require it to be |correct). Buhahahahahahahahaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n766f0$1s2b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373799 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: >> Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any claim >> that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is somehow >> affected by itself. > > Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer > has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are > not moving relative to each other. Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions L/ T). >> How else could Einstein's silly claim be interpreted? > > It is not a silly claim, but a rather genial idea to assume that space > and time are not fixed in order to reconcile Maxwell electrodynamics > with the fact that according to all prior observations the speed of > light is independent of the motion of the observer of light and the > light source. > A theory, (the) special (theory of) relativity, that has been confirmed > innumerable times, and falsified zero times, in the past 110 years. None of Einstein's theory has ever been used anywhere. In all practical situations, there is no significant different between it and NM. > It is even improbable that you could post here if that theory were > fundamentally flawed, because the technology that you are using to post > here is based on theories that build on special relativity (i.e. require > it to be correct). You dingleberries are so brainwashed you believe anything another dingleberry says. >> What does it mean to say that "a moving clock runs slow"? > > It means that it runs *slower* relative to another clock that is > *defined* > to be stationary (keeps its distance and angle to the observer). To see > that you only need to apply the Pythagorean theorem: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity> HAHAHHAHHAHA! Not the 'light clock' debacle again.... You have been watching the idiot Poofessor Brian Cox again. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5f79065-17c7-43f1-a0d4-7bbbb37ff082@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373842 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:53:24 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions L/ > T). Hahahaha! Delusional Wilson's baseless assertions rear their ugly head again. He spouts baloney with nothing to back it up. Meanwhile, copious REAL evidence refutes his hogwash. > None of Einstein's theory has ever been used anywhere. In all practical > situations, there is no significant different between it and NM. Hahahaha! http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/ http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw14/docs/papers/sci7b_jcm.pdf http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20031002/ "Wilson" is such a self-brainwashed dingleberry that he divorces himself from reality to escpe from the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 13:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n767rv$1umu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373842 |
On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions L/ > T). Who says? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n77n2t$1rh1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373847 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:17:22 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions >> L/ >> T). > > Who says? I say. NOW here is NOW everywhere. Now plus 1 second here is NOW plus one second everywhere. Only a deluded SciFi fanatic would claim that time was dependent on movement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 04:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62fcf1e5-5c27-4271-9f55-6dcbdab8d1e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373908 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:43:12 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:17:22 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions > > > L/T). > > > > Who says? > > I say. Then you are wrong. > NOW here is NOW everywhere. Baloney > Now plus 1 second here is NOW plus one second everywhere. Pure baloney > Only a deluded SciFi fanatic would claim that time was dependent on > movement. Only a delusional wanna-be "scientist" would claim that time is universal. Newton said time was universal four centuries ago. He can be forgiven. Anyone who claims the same today is an ignoramus and deserves no leniency. He is a reality denier, one step away from lunacy and should be put away where he cannot harm himself or others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 04:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4385551e-5adf-4c17-b59c-7852353bc485@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373918 |
W dniu czwartek, 14 stycznia 2016 13:35:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > Only a delusional wanna-be "scientist" would claim that time is universal. According to your moronic guru's own definition - it is. > He is a reality denier And GPS clocks are not real, as The Shit didn't predict such clocks. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 05:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <241b8add-5484-47af-b81d-70fa2f701016@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373921 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:52:13 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 14 stycznia 2016 13:35:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > Only a delusional wanna-be "scientist" would claim that time is universal. > > According to your moronic guru's own definition - it > is. Liar. How can you have such a twisted mind and still tie your shoes? > > He is a reality denier > > And GPS clocks are not real, as The Shit didn't > predict such clocks. Right? Wrong. Relativity predicted what would happen: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html Of course, psychotic reality-deniers like you and "Henry" are too stupid to understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web