Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617956 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 358 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-17 12:05 +1000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 13:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-19 06:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:19 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 23:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-20 07:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 19:53 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 00:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:13 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 02:05 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 20:57 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:33 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 15:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-17 17:46 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 16:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 20:06 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:20 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 15:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-08-17 08:13 -0600
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:18 -0700
Cranks Richard Hertz and Laurence Crossen run out of arguments "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 09:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 20:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 23:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:44 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:32 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:00 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 16:49 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ben Harin <ianr@ninrbnnr.nn> - 2023-08-18 23:27 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 15:40 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:23 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:53 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Wayne Bereznevich <nwne@czewnebe.ze> - 2023-08-18 22:37 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:49 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Elton Vakar <eero@aklenaoo.av> - 2023-08-18 23:07 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Merlan Bauze <emeu@eabezeel.bn> - 2023-08-19 10:13 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:39 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 14:56 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 13:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 10:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-18 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 10:22 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:16 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:51 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 10:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:57 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:35 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 08:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 19:49 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 20:30 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 23:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 07:29 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 07:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 18:03 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 00:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 03:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 09:38 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 20:05 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 19:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 15:52 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:39 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-03 17:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 21:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 01:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 12:01 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 03:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 04:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:08 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 05:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 13:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Delmer Tupalo <rptm@lmlelodl.el> - 2023-08-20 18:44 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:29 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Travis Bazili <aail@ttttviat.sv> - 2023-08-23 09:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Clarence Talkovsky <nskl@eccaryec.kv> - 2023-08-23 11:53 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 23:21 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:13 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:23 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:26 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 18:56 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 11:36 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 11:22 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 11:52 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Brett Harkharov <aaah@rthtrath.rk> - 2023-08-19 17:12 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 08:08 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 02:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Chico Patsalo <tpac@slsialct.ac> - 2023-08-19 10:41 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 12:22 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:45 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 03:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 08:36 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 19:18 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:01 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-20 12:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 17:52 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 13:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:40 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 09:12 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 00:32 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:24 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:31 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 14:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 11:14 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 18:40 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Shon Babukh <koun@bnbuboab.ob> - 2023-08-18 23:38 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 20:04 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:37 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 01:55 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 19:19 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 15:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 16:15 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 18:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 19:11 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:02 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-20 07:07 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:59 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 12:39 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 20:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:03 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 00:35 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-21 10:36 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 22:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 10:03 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:50 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:34 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:42 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:30 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:12 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:38 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:05 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:41 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:48 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 19:11 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:56 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-21 23:33 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:13 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 22:24 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:34 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 21:53 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 09:58 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:19 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 22:25 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:47 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:28 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-22 14:06 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:17 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-22 23:20 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 00:44 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Colby Zolotar <bolr@obzooota.yr> - 2023-08-24 09:32 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:28 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 06:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:26 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 10:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:21 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:24 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 22:59 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-21 23:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 15:19 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-22 17:49 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Evenezer Peltser <etpv@pverreet.zz> - 2023-08-23 11:04 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:04 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-21 21:25 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:18 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:43 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:13 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:15 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-18 18:43 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-19 14:51 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 16:50 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-21 19:01 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:06 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:17 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:26 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 01:31 -0400
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 01:00 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Williard Bah <rhab@ihdiadrd.lw> - 2023-08-23 10:30 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 05:57 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Basil Hariton <athi@iaribinh.bo> - 2023-08-23 11:51 +0000
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 07:48 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-21 20:07 -0500
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:21 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:41 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 18:07 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:52 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:58 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 11:30 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 08:51 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-28 15:20 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 06:09 -0700
Re: List of Critics of Relativity: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-29 09:45 -0700
Page 9 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 18 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 21:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc3o3j$2kmhi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618587 |
On 8/22/2023 4:58 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users > (to a microsecond or so) that is one way, > > Jan > > BTW, you can see it happening in practice, > when driving past a wind farm. > Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill > independently take their time from GPS time receivers. > I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air. Interesting. I didn't know they did that, but that makes sense. Which reminds me. The world news on one US TV network often uses the Tappan Zee Bridge near New York City as the background for a reporter. Its 8 towers have the flashers in synch, I subconsciously assumed there was one flasher device on the bridge which flashed all the lights. Except for one day when one of the flashers was flashing once per second but not in synch with the others. GPS time would explain it if one failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfwucr.1dtheppvrklcjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618604 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/22/2023 4:58 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users > > (to a microsecond or so) that is one way, > > > > Jan > > > > BTW, you can see it happening in practice, > > when driving past a wind farm. > > Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill > > independently take their time from GPS time receivers. > > I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air. > > Interesting. I didn't know they did that, but that makes sense. Which > reminds me. The world news on one US TV network often uses the Tappan > Zee Bridge near New York City as the background for a reporter. Its 8 > towers have the flashers in synch, I subconsciously assumed there was > one flasher device on the bridge which flashed all the lights. Except > for one day when one of the flashers was flashing once per second but > not in synch with the others. GPS time would explain it if one failed. Those flashers will have a back-up timebase of course. If its GPS is lost it will go on at its own rate. (and it will show) Taking time from GPS is obviously much simpler and more cost-effective than laying kilometers of wiring, Jan (If I lie, it is in good company, from the days when sci.geo.satellite-nav was alive)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a97f9a53-0390-4261-8096-14d0e88e12ean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618587 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > > > > The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. > > > > International standards bodies did not suddenly become > > > > empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means > > > > such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. > > > Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies. > > > > It is not a matter of philosophy. > You are pulling one line out of context. Your single line was completely isolated from the rest of your post. How was it out of context? > > Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way > > methods for the high precision dissemination of time > > between standards organizations. > Yes of course. > But now you are talking about real working physics, > which is something else altogether. > How else could it be done anyway? > > Actually it is not two way, but a great many ways, > involving many stations, with corrections applied to corrections > to get everything just right. The two-way communication would typically be via a single satellite in geostationary orbit, thus minimizing the need for "corrections applied to corrections", which are still quite extensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 01:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fc4f60f-e386-4fbd-bbbf-41b23537c762n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618750 |
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 07:36:46 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. > > > > > International standards bodies did not suddenly become > > > > > empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means > > > > > such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods. > > > > Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies. > > > > > > It is not a matter of philosophy. > > You are pulling one line out of context. > > Your single line was completely isolated from the rest > of your post. How was it out of context? That's simple, trash: when a knight of The Shit says "out of context" it is out of context. Only crakpots may object. Are you one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfv1hz.6bi17g127dikwN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618549 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > For the same reason, I disagreed with you when you stated that > "A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be based > on a calibration of the spacing." > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/b9JDV_QUAQA J Incorrect reference. That's nothing about anything I participated in. But this is a good oppportunity to put the matter straight. The context of all this was that some complete idiots (like the Jane entity) but unfortunately also some others who should have known better (don't know if that includes you) insisted that somehow wavelength (of light) is the primary quantity that is measured, not the frequency. (or even that the frequency has no physical meaning) Anyone who knows anything about the heyday of spectroscopy and quantum mechanics should know better. (or even knows anything about physics in general) The frequency is the primary quantity, because it is the energy in a different unit. (or just the same unit, in natural units) And energy is all there is to it, really. So what spectroscopist measured was the inverse wavelength, (aka the wave number) in their prefered unit of cm^-1. (so \nu/c) They could not convert this to absolute frequency because the speed of light wasn't known accurately enough. (and the numbers would have become inconveniently large) So they calibrated their gratings in cm^-1. (so in lines/cm, and not cm/line) Frequency being the primary quantity was already known long before quantum mechanics. For example, Lorentz predicted that a (normal) Zeeman line should split in \omaga_0 ± \omeaga_Z, so Zeeman lines must be symmetrical in terms of frequency, (and not in terms of wavelength) Zeeman verified Lorentz' prediction experimentally, which gave them both a shared Nobel prize. In other words: the Lorentz/Zeeman splitting is symmetrical in terma of energy/frequency. It is not so in terms of wavelength. An even more striking early demonstration is the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle. (1908) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg–Ritz_combination_principle> (yes, -that- Ritz) It states that sums and differences -of the frequencies- of spectral lines will be another spectral line, subject to certain selection rules. Mind you, frequencies, not wavelengths. [1] (and of course also when given in cm^-1) Ritz used the principle to predict new spectral lines. It was also invaluable in the determination of spectral lines. If a spectroscopist found a new spectral line, of some 'unknown' element perhaps, he would immediately search his tables of known line frequencies to see if this 'new' line might be at the sum or difference of the frequencies of already identified spectral lines of known elements, which would unambigeously identify it. Tables of wavelenghts otoh are completely useless for this. Hope this settles your concerns: yes, spectrocopists measure frequencies, (in a suitable unit) and yes, spectroscopic grating should be (and are) specified in (number of) lines per unit of lenght. And yes again, nowadays that unit of length is determined in terms of the speed of light, making it possible to give the absolute frequencies of optical lines. Jan [1] So Bohr knew before he had even started on his atom that is was the energies/frequencies that he should predict.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 23:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <585a9be1-16be-4f1d-b4c2-cb1b5598916fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618554 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > The frequency is the primary quantity, > because it is the energy in a different unit. > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > And energy is all there is to it, really. Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a94596eb-9193-43fc-9cd7-760bc2728d68n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618640 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:06:55 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? No, a mumbling idiot is just mumbling. For centuries people was listening physicists like pigs listening thunders, and the quality control of physics has completely degenerated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 12:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfwunu.1jqek781wpdh6wN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618640 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? Sure, you can have it your way, if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. (all of which you snipped for effect) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 03:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9b9bd08-3498-4e54-aee6-15546fe5db7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618660 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 12:02:01 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees > > The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > Sure, you can have it your way, > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > (all of which you snipped for effect) The mumble of JJ is more noble than ordinary talking of ordinary mortal worms. Can't you see that, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5af93113-90c9-4926-822c-04424e7d662cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618660 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees > > The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > Sure, you can have it your way, > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > (all of which you snipped for effect) I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing . Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence . The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx. 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx. 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx. 30 degrees WHAT IS THE PRIMARY QUANTITY BEING MEASURED BY THE GRATING? And yes, this is a fundamental physics question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfx4hm.1w4ucnt10h6uieN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618667 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees > > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > Sure, you can have it your way, > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > > (all of which you snipped for effect) > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves. And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you. This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion. You really should know better, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4ea06c7-dbba-4f85-9874-bc8aad842702n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618670 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 13:55:28 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 > > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is > > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees > > > > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > > Sure, you can have it your way, > > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > > > (all of which you snipped for effect) > > > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. > You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves. > > And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you. > This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion. The correct way of an usenet discussion is listening and obeying the knights of The Shit! Everybody knows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c5eff3e-451f-4938-a6e6-f613e12cdb35n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618670 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 > > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is > > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees > > > > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > > Sure, you can have it your way, > > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > > > (all of which you snipped for effect) > > > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. > You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves. > > And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you. > This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion. > > You really should know better, Jan, there are several people having considerably better accomplishments in physics than myself who have objected to your assertion that frequency is the primary quantity being measured by diffraction gratings. And that the change in definition of the speed of light in 1983 could have anything to do with the physics of diffraction gratings. For example, Tom Roberts wrote "I think Jan is confused. Every analysis I have seen of diffraction gratings uses the wavelength of the wave, not its frequency." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/GQ5yUeYbAQAJ Likewise, Paul Alsing wrote "Am I missing something here?" following up with a link. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/sm6M8RUSAQAJ If there is some sort of misunderstanding on our part as to what you have meant by your assertion, you have some explaining to do. You obviously have considerable knowledge of certain aspects of physics, but there are certain aspects in which your behavior resembles that of crackpots, for example your occasional use of a private vocabulary and your apparent belief that you cannot ever be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 14:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfymfo.1dukufbvsij05N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618728 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > > > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 > > > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is > > > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees > > > > > > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > > > Sure, you can have it your way, > > > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > > > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > > > > (all of which you snipped for effect) > > > > > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > > > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. > > You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves. > > > > And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you. > > This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion. > > > > You really should know better, > > Jan, there are several people [-] Sorry, I am not going to have third hand discussions with others through you. I did seriously try to explain to explain the physics of it to you. All you do is snip it all, come up with a quote-mine, and call my attempts at explanation 'spew'. So, if you don't mind, I really don't see why I should waste more time on you, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b4da4d5-1c70-4ba8-8d06-d68e139bedd8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618761 |
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 14:02:08 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine: > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity, > > > > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit. > > > > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units) > > > > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing > > > > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees > > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 > > > > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is > > > > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees > > > > > > > > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > > > > Sure, you can have it your way, > > > > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules. > > > > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics. > > > > > (all of which you snipped for effect) > > > > > > > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > > > > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. > > > You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves. > > > > > > And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you. > > > This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion. > > > > > > You really should know better, > > > > Jan, there are several people [-] > > Sorry, I am not going to have third hand discussions with others > through you. > I did seriously try to explain to explain the physics of it to you. > > All you do is snip it all, come up with a quote-mine, > and call my attempts at explanation 'spew'. > > So, if you don't mind, I really don't see > why I should waste more time on you, Talking to a relativistic idiot is like playing chess with pigeon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1d13ae3-b34a-4f39-902d-c44c374122b6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618667 |
On August 23, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: >>> > The frequency is the primary quantity, >>> > because it is the energy in a different unit. >>> > And energy is all there is to it, really. > >>> Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating? > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant* > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering. > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing . > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence . > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx. 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx. 30 degrees > The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx. 30 degrees > WHAT IS THE PRIMARY QUANTITY BEING MEASURED BY THE GRATING? > And yes, this is a fundamental physics question. Not really, it's more like a loaded question. You assume the existence of a quantity, a well defined 'thing', which is common to these three cases. Actually, they are distinct experiments, which have some conceptual analogies. Analyze each separately, report the observable results and predictions. Finis. Then your "fundamental physics question" becomes moot. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-20 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6dbdae55-06c7-4038-ad0a-6e873220153fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618389 |
Exceptionalism of the USA space science: 50 years ago, astronauts played golf in the Moon. Months ago, Japan and India missions crashed on the Moon, while trying to land there. Now the Russian fucked up, as the autonomous spacecraft committed sepuku against the South Pole. Next, the second Indian mission, with russian technology. Something very fishy here: '70s tech and computers better than today? And they even packed a lunar rover in a tiny module.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Delmer Tupalo <rptm@lmlelodl.el> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-20 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubtmud$1f8qq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618394 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > Exceptionalism of the USA space science: 50 years ago, astronauts played > golf in the Moon. > Months ago, Japan and India missions crashed on the Moon, while trying > to land there. > Now the Russian fucked up, as the autonomous spacecraft committed sepuku > against the South Pole. > Next, the second Indian mission, with russian technology. > Something very fishy here: '70s tech and computers better than today? > And they even packed a lunar rover in a tiny module. you must be fucking stoopid. What "70𝘀_𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀"?? That was a 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲. The cacamericans gringos lies in everything the pretend they do. They never made the Mars. It's all 𝗮_𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗔𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗮. cacamerica is a khazar driven fascist country. They run the country with 𝗱𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲_𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽, which is illegal, both locally and naturally. Tell them suck my dick. tell them I sent you to say that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-21 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc0s1k$231l8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618394 |
On 8/20/2023 2:36 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > Exceptionalism of the USA space science: 50 years ago, astronauts played golf in the Moon. > > Months ago, Japan and India missions crashed on the Moon, while trying to land there. > > Now the Russian fucked up, as the autonomous spacecraft committed sepuku against the South Pole. > > Next, the second Indian mission, with russian technology. > > Something very fishy here: '70s tech and computers better than today? I guess the Russians are up to their old tricks. Rush a mission for political purposes (in this case to beat India) and in doing so, something goes wrong and the mission fails. They even tried to get something to the moon just ahead of Apollo 11 but it failed. (to be fair, the US isn't innocent of this) I have mixed feelings on this. First, science and the world lost whatever science this probe could have provided. But it's hard to resist cheering whenever something Russian fails, particularly if it fails spectacularly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Travis Bazili <aail@ttttviat.sv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 09:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc4k3a$2rs7i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618511 |
Volney wrote:
> I guess the Russians are up to their old tricks. Rush a mission for
> political purposes (in this case to beat India) and in doing so,
> something goes wrong and the mission fails. They even tried to get
> something to the moon just ahead of Apollo 11 but it failed.
you have a {{{𝗯𝗶𝗴_𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲}}}. The "𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼_𝗻𝗮𝘂𝘁𝘀", of the illegal khazar goy
driven capitalist america, are still running 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻_𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 and 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
from 𝗔𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗮.
One way of retaliation for these drone attacks is 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗱
𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 in Ukraine and flatten them out with long range missiles be it in
Kiev or any part of Ukraine.
actually 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗮 is providing 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 to all these nazi nato "ukurina"
𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀, they use to kill russian people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web