Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418080 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 16:44 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 18:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 16:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 18:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 14:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 18:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 19:12 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 20:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:51 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 16:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 09:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 17:14 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-05 20:38 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:16 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 21:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 23:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-07 22:04 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 12:39 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-10 21:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 16:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:50 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 22:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 03:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 11:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 15:07 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:31 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:53 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 23:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:49 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 10:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 14:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-20 05:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 10:12 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 15:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:41 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 16:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 09:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:36 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 12:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:30 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 11:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 21:05 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 14:22 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:44 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 13:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 11:51 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 05:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:26 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 21:23 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:13 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:33 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:46 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:52 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:58 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 22:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:47 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 12:01 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-11 08:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-11 11:16 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 23:07 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:06 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 08:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-06 15:58 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 15:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-06 09:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 19:16 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-07 20:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:28 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 14:17 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:40 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 00:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-10 09:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:36 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:20 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 11:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 05:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:07 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 16:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 09:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 09:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:52 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 16:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 13:33 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 08:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 14:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:29 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:43 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 06:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-06 16:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 10:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-10 01:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:36 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 16:44 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-08 09:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:13 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 12:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-09 11:35 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:02 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate thailao2558@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 04:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-05-08 21:41 +1000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:52 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 14:00 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 14:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 23:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 11:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:43 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-06 08:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:25 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:18 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 20:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-06 10:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 12:59 -0700
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:43 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-14 19:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 20:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 16:49 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 18:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 17:37 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 20:57 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 19:15 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 15:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:17 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:39 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-16 18:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-15 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeivng$9f9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418319 |
rotchm wrote: > Correct. Thats even true in scriptures of law. No matter whats written, > it must be interpreted correctly, or as in was intended. That's why we > have lawyers & judges. So for Einstein's work, dont go by what was > literally written. Go by le intention & purpose of it. For this, one has > to use one's brains. Only very few have this ability. Everything you said, exactly the opposite. You are not sexy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9gq0xAYdho
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc050073-6f26-474a-8be9-07b97b3895af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418286 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:26:33 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:44:14 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 7:54:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:27:31 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 9:40:43 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 > > > > > > > > You begin by making the classic mistake on p. 3 of interpreting the summary of Einstein's paper > > > > (pp. 37 - 38(first half) of the Dover edition) as the paper proper. > > > > > > > > At that time, around 1905, it was not standard to label introductory paragraphs explicitly > > > > as "Summary" or "Abstract" as we do it today. So you have to keep it in mind not to mention > > > > read the paper with understanding. > > > > > > > > There is no "mathematicians' theory or relativity", it's fantasy concocted by people who > > > > for whatever reason(*) decided not to learn the subject. > > > > > > > > (*)The lack of time, ability, true interest in pursuing the truth, whatever, pick one. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > Arguing that I misread something doesn't change the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE which undeniably says that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" that they teach in schools is WRONG. > > > > No, that's incorrect. The whole POINT of his paper was to construct what you > > call "all observers theory". He needed that because what he was really after > > was to demonstrate that under a certain minimal set of assumptions Maxwell's > > equations were valid in _any_ inertial frame (and not just the aether > > frame) provided the E and B fields were transformed in a certain way as > > well (that transformation of E and B had been known before Einstein but > > it was ad hoc, with no clear physical meaning). Einstein's paper showed > > that the transformed fields could be treated just like the E and B in the > > original frame and that Maxwell's equations could be truly considered > > invariant between inertial observers. > > > > The way he sets things up is to start with a temporarily fixed "stationary" > > system, set up its clocks and insist that all light signals had speed c > > in that system (where the definition of "speed" uses the clock sync > > convention set up in that system). Using some other assumptions (e.g. > > the first postulate) he proves that in the "moving" system all light > > signals likewise have speed c. > > > > > Why can't anyone here discuss the EVIDENCE? > > > > Because the evidence requires your understanding it. There is no other way. > > > > -- > > Jan > > So, your argument is some MIND-READING about what Einstein MEANT, not what he wrote? No, where did you get that idea? :-) I'm just describing the paper, it's all there black and white. Einstein states his goal clearly in the summary section (the one preceding part I). That goal is achieved at the end of part II, section 6, where in the paragraph labelled "2" he states a "New manner of expression". This "new manner of expression" was the whole POINT of the paper and the "price" Einstein had to pay for it was to rearrange Newtonian mechanics a bit (as in foregoing absolute time, for example). Literally within months of the publication it became clear that part I of the paper (conceived originally as a sort of "mere justification" of the procedure) was in fact more fundamental than part II which formed originally the goal. So today few people even bother to read part II. Einstein's approach no longer requires a preferred frame for Maxwell's equation (no need for "the aether frame") and resolves the bizarre conundrum that had bothered many people at the time, namely that the following three conditions had been known pre-1905 to be simultaneously and annoyingly true: 1. Maxwell's equations in their standard form were valid only in one frame AND in certain other coordinate systems related to that one frame by certain transformations (called "Lorentz transformations") which made no physical sense, and were thus considered a curious mathematical property of Maxwell's equations with no clear physical meaning to the "transformed" coordinates, 2. Newton's F=ma was valid in one frame AND in other frames related by the "obvious" transformations due to constant velocity. Newton's F=ma was obviously not valid under Lorentz transformation, 3. The two items above are not really contradictory, just EXTREMELY ODD, considering the widely accepted fact that at the time that all macroscopically observed mechanical interactions were due exclusively to electromagnetic interactions between atoms. As such, the entire mechanics should in principle be derivable from Maxwell's theory. But if so, then why Newton's mechanics was "obvious-velocity-transformation-invariant" rather than Lorentz-invariant??? This made no sense. Einstein's 1905 paper resolves this by adjusting mechanics to make it Lorentz-invariant, and providing a reasonable justification for the actual process of accomplishing this. > No, the whole POINT of Einstein's 1905 paper is to explain Time Dilation and that a clock that moves will run slower than a clock that remains stationary. No, that was a consequence, not an attempt to explain. > And that means someone who is moving will see time pass differently from someone who is stationary - because time will move at a different rate. Ditto. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeps3r$l2t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418269 |
JanPB wrote: >> Arguing that I misread something doesn't change the EXPERIMENTAL >> EVIDENCE which undeniably says that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is >> correct and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" that they teach >> in schools is WRONG. > > No, that's incorrect. The whole POINT of his paper was to construct what > you call "all observers theory". He needed that because what he was > really You definitely are incapable to be an observer. http://gizmodo.com/5820113/i-just-cant-believe-they-went-to-the-moon-in- this-thing Keine remembering of the biggest step, but the simulation only. A hollywoodish entrepeneourship. "Moon Hoax Buzz Aldrin Simulation mirrored Brugga jugga " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q89tPXcTyI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ab00c7b-ca98-431f-af9a-9f7f558cb129@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418670 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 6:33:51 AM UTC-7, Bordamos Alamidade wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> Arguing that I misread something doesn't change the EXPERIMENTAL > >> EVIDENCE which undeniably says that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is > >> correct and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" that they teach > >> in schools is WRONG. > > > > No, that's incorrect. The whole POINT of his paper was to construct what > > you call "all observers theory". He needed that because what he was > > really > > You definitely are incapable to be an observer. > > http://gizmodo.com/5820113/i-just-cant-believe-they-went-to-the-moon-in- > this-thing > > Keine remembering of the biggest step, but the simulation only. A > hollywoodish entrepeneourship. > "Moon Hoax Buzz Aldrin Simulation mirrored Brugga jugga " > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q89tPXcTyI Complete nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeqj2j$1vq9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418691 |
JanPB wrote: >> "Moon Hoax Buzz Aldrin Simulation mirrored Brugga jugga " >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q89tPXcTyI > > Complete nonsense. Can you prove it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590C2169.3868@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418080 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > Ed Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a price. The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over pay by a penny. Name a journal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9c0ead4-59f1-489a-8e95-ccba52b80d9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418175 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > Ed > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > price. > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > pay by a penny. > > > Name a journal. arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590CD996.69E9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418233 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.02 > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > price. > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > Name a journal. > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > Ed I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... you wrote: "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." The answer is...any journal! You give them money, they'll publish it! Name a journal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <671a27b6-aa7d-4066-9db1-6f90871f5bb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418276 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.02 > > > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > > price. > > > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > > > Ed > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > you wrote: > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > The answer is...any journal! > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > Name a journal. Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 15:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oein48$1plk$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418281 |
On 5/5/17 3:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought > was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their > web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As > soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > Ed I may be wrong here, but I believe MOST if not all peer-reviewed journals charge authors publication fees. But typically, universities or labs pay those fees when their staff publishes. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25279096-8789-4dbb-b82c-7e5c1d39cb5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418281 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.02 > > > > > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > > > price. > > > > > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > you wrote: > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > Name a journal. > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > Ed Since I've never actually published a science paper, there definitely may be things about the process that I do not understand. It was my understanding that pay-to-publish is for people who cannot get their papers published by a respectable journal. But, then I found that many top-ranked journals charge as much as $2,500 to publish an article. So, I'm still learning how the science article publishing process works. I do not plan to pay to have any article of mine published. If they ALL charge for publishing, then I'll just leave my papers on viXra.org and maybe self-publish a BOOK about the whole screwball process. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0ceddc5-386f-48ae-b75b-821899c0cc5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418289 |
El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 17:32:33 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > > > you wrote: > > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > > > Ed > > Since I've never actually published a science paper, there definitely may be things about the process that I do not understand. It was my understanding that pay-to-publish is for people who cannot get their papers published by a respectable journal. But, then I found that many top-ranked journals charge as much as $2,500 to publish an article. So, I'm still learning how the science article publishing process works. > It is quite clear you do not know the scientific publishing. Most ISI journals (ISI is a system of journal indexing which is used by libraries and universities to rate the relevance of a given paper, as measured by the impact factor) do not charge for publishing a paper (of course within certain limits, for instance regarding the paper length or number of copies). Examples are the IEEE journals or Elsevier journals. You can check this in https://kofegeek.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/list-of-physics-journals-impact-factors-2013/ > I do not plan to pay to have any article of mine published. If they ALL charge for publishing, then I'll just leave my papers on viXra.org and maybe self-publish a BOOK about the whole screwball process. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c5c6952-328b-4bca-976b-27390e7e4f29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418292 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 17:32:33 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > > > > > you wrote: > > > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Since I've never actually published a science paper, there definitely may be things about the process that I do not understand. It was my understanding that pay-to-publish is for people who cannot get their papers published by a respectable journal. But, then I found that many top-ranked journals charge as much as $2,500 to publish an article. So, I'm still learning how the science article publishing process works. > > > It is quite clear you do not know the scientific publishing. Most ISI > journals (ISI is a system of journal indexing which is used by libraries > and universities to rate the relevance of a given paper, as measured > by the impact factor) do not charge for publishing a paper (of course > within certain limits, for instance regarding the paper length or number > of copies). Examples are the IEEE journals or Elsevier journals. > > You can check this in > https://kofegeek.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/list-of-physics-journals-impact-factors-2013/ > > > I do not plan to pay to have any article of mine published. If they ALL charge for publishing, then I'll just leave my papers on viXra.org and maybe self-publish a BOOK about the whole screwball process. > > > > Ed Yes, I made a list of journals to try by extracting information from such a web site. I got my list from here: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100 I had to remove all the journals about medicine, botany, etc., and then I had to remove all those that aren't printed in English. I ended up with 38 journals on the list. Then I started checking them out. Reviews of Modern Physics charges $2,900 to print an article. Rank #2. Applied Physics Reviews charges $2,200 to print an article. Rank #19. Physics Review X charges $2,900 to print an article. Rank #27. New Journal of Physics charges $2,000 to print an article. Rank #83. Etc. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79a436e2-7e73-4527-af7a-83df0d36fc66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418293 |
None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7897dad-8386-461a-a1a3-f71bcf9f3142@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418295 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:27:07 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. I tried Nature and Science. I just got form letters in response. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeirls$2rv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418297 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:27:07 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for >> comparison. > > I tried Nature and Science. I just got form letters in response. Ed You have to send it through an University, Ed. You are so sexy, but you have to have affiliation, or work, at an University. Otherwise they don't look at it, at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb716b56-4dfb-447c-9937-f1d56e537588@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418299 |
Ed Lake Gibbered Okay, all we are doing is arguing about irrelevant matters. The only important matter here is whether or not anyone can argue that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" as described in my paper is not TOTALLY WRONG. The EVIDENCE clearly shows it is WRONG. The paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/17O4.0256v2.pdf I could have afforded to pay the $508, but this is NOT my "career." I'm just doing it because it FASCINATES me that schools are TEACHING NONSENSE, and no one seems to care. It wasn't worth $508 to me, when everyone here would just argue that it was a LOW RANKED journal and that I had to pay to get my paper published, which anyone can supposedly do. This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. Ed You know nothing of physics but you feel qualified to Brand what is being taught as "NONSENSE". More Sewage from the Sewer Learn Physics, Stop Gibbering https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro203puVhQsmCj9qhlFQ-As8e https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro22WeXM2QCKJm2NP_xHpGV89
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6799a76b-b580-489f-854a-2693d6b244db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418299 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:43:29 PM UTC-5, Prijzen Sörözésekre wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:27:07 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for > >> comparison. > > > > I tried Nature and Science. I just got form letters in response. Ed > > You have to send it through an University, Ed. You are so sexy, but you > have to have affiliation, or work, at an University. Otherwise they don't > look at it, at all. Yes, that is what arXiv.org told me. In theory, something that is correct is correct regardless of who says it. Science is supposed to be based upon experiment and evidence, not on credentials, but, that is not the way things generally work in the REAL world. I have another paper that I will use to start a new thread today. It's the paper that I withdrew when that journal asked me to pay to have it published. It is probably TEN TIMES as controversial as my Second Postulate paper, and it, too, is based solidly on experimental evidence. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeiuaq$7ci$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418295 |
On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 15:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e69b2ea4-1bae-4a6f-aba1-a10b50abd77a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418314 |
El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web