Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672286 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 428 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 14:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 22:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-23 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:17 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:01 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 12:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 15:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 18:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 19:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 06:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 09:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 12:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 13:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 16:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-15 05:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 04:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-12 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 22:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-14 21:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-15 13:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-15 13:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 06:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 07:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 11:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-18 11:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-18 11:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-19 14:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 14:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 11:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 11:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 13:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:25 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 14:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 15:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:26 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-23 07:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000
Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 01:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 20:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-23 19:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-24 22:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-26 10:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> - 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 07:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 14:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 20:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 12:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-18 08:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 17:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 17:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 09:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 19:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:29 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 00:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 07:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 21:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 22:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 15:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-22 21:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700
Page 17 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 22 Next page →
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d76b83d746f80e$16920$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673482 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 26 10:27:39 +0000, Python wrote: >> Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature. > > Ah. > > So "ALL physicists EVER are frauds" has already become: > > "Everyone claiming infallible access to Nature is a fraud." > > That's rather different, Maciej. > > And, amusingly, physicists generally DON'T claim that. > > A physical "law" is not Nature whispering divine truth into Newton's or > Einstein's ear. > > It is a mathematical model saying: > > IF the model is correct, > THEN experiment should give X. > > Experiment gives X, within stated uncertainty: > the model survives another test. > > Experiment gives not-X: > the model has a problem. > > That's precisely why physics has error bars, competing models, > experimental replication and theories that get replaced. > > > So your magnificent indictment of > > ALL PHYSICISTS EVER > > has survived approximately one post before becoming: > > "People claiming to be infallible are frauds." > > Splendid. > > Galileo, Newton and Faraday may leave the courtroom. He was right one one count. All the cowardly physicists who supported making Einstein's theories official did so purely to save their own reputations after the MMX proved them all wrong. > We appear to be prosecuting the Pope. The pope is a leading scammer...selling seats in something that doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <GvmdnZgJe9I8diz3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673511 |
On 09/21/2026 12:06 PM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 26 10:27:39 +0000, Python wrote: > >>> Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature. >> >> Ah. >> >> So "ALL physicists EVER are frauds" has already become: >> >> "Everyone claiming infallible access to Nature is a fraud." >> >> That's rather different, Maciej. >> >> And, amusingly, physicists generally DON'T claim that. >> >> A physical "law" is not Nature whispering divine truth into Newton's or >> Einstein's ear. >> >> It is a mathematical model saying: >> >> IF the model is correct, >> THEN experiment should give X. >> >> Experiment gives X, within stated uncertainty: >> the model survives another test. >> >> Experiment gives not-X: >> the model has a problem. >> >> That's precisely why physics has error bars, competing models, >> experimental replication and theories that get replaced. >> >> >> So your magnificent indictment of >> >> ALL PHYSICISTS EVER >> >> has survived approximately one post before becoming: >> >> "People claiming to be infallible are frauds." >> >> Splendid. >> >> Galileo, Newton and Faraday may leave the courtroom. > > He was right one one count. All the cowardly physicists who supported > making Einstein's theories official did so purely to save their own > reputations after the MMX proved them all wrong. > > >> We appear to be prosecuting the Pope. > > The pope is a leading scammer...selling seats in something that doesn't > exist. > > > Like has already been established here already, Michelson-Morley doesn't say anything about real space-contraction. (And MMX is not the Minuteman ICBM fleet.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d7b57baba8904c$153$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673529 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 19:43:24 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/21/2026 12:06 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Sep 26 10:27:39 +0000, Python wrote: >> >>>> Yes. Everyone pretending that what he says are The Laws of Nature. >> >> >> >> > Like has already been established here already, Michelson-Morley doesn't > say anything about real space-contraction. The MMX showed light moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so rotating the apparatus achieved nothing. The null result proved Newton correct...but did not refute Einstein. > (And MMX is not the Minuteman ICBM fleet.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1193khu$kjpg$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673612 |
HenryWilson wrote: > The MMX showed light moves at c relative to its source and everything at > rest with that source...so rotating the apparatus achieved nothing. The > null result proved Newton correct... Nonsense. Newton was wrong about light with regard to what it must be described as. Foucault, at the latest, disproved Newton's theory of corpuscular light: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> > but did not refute Einstein. How could it? It was made 18 years before Einstein postulated special relativity. *facepalm* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <memdnb05Mdt06Sj3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673727 |
On 09/24/2026 09:53 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> The MMX showed light moves at c relative to its source and everything at >> rest with that source...so rotating the apparatus achieved nothing. The >> null result proved Newton correct... > > Nonsense. Newton was wrong about light with regard to what it must be > described as. Foucault, at the latest, disproved Newton's theory of > corpuscular light: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> > >> but did not refute Einstein. > > How could it? It was made 18 years before Einstein postulated special > relativity. *facepalm* > Fresnel for example already "proved" the wave-like character of light (about diffraction and so on). I think what he's saying is that "particle/wave duality" must thusly "refute" all of them. Accounts these days like "physics is too hard, let's just make the universe finite again", or, "physics is too hard, let's just make atoms particles" or "physics is too hard, let's make no time", or "physics is too hard, mathematics is too hard, let's make differential geometry refuse to admit functions with flat lines", or otherwise that physics is too hard and mathematics is too hard, maybe they should find pursuits more suited to their dispositions and abilities. So, reductionists, then, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d76af171589cc7$16919$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673458 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >>> The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet >>> Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light >>> from the Sun to be 638±6 m/s. >>> >>> Δλ/λ = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s >>> >>> Δλ/λ = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift. >>> The equation fλ = c >>> where c is a constant, is always true by definition. >>> Δf/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift. > > >> That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look >> good. >> It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors. >> >> > This statement says it all! > > According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson: > all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists > involved in the experiments are frauds. > > A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these > credentials: > > On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > << > I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity, > thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations, > laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science > degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological and > physics subjects included. > I spent eleven years at two of the best universities, > overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in > Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years. You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but that's the facts man. > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.) My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one. ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s1t1zj.1aqjp2918nbxjuN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673510 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet
> >>> Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red shift of light
> >>> from the Sun to be 638±6 m/s.
> >>>
> >>> ??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
> >>>
> >>> ??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
> >>> The equation f? = c
> >>> where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
> >>> ?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
> >
> >
> >> That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look
> >> good.
> >> It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
> >>
> >>
> > This statement says it all!
> >
> > According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
> > all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
> > involved in the experiments are frauds.
> >
> > A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these
> > credentials:
> >
> > On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> > <<
> > I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM, relativity,
> > thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential equations,
> > laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely separate science
> > degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few other biological and
> > physics subjects included.
> > I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
> > overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
> > Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
>
> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
> discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but that's
> the facts man.
>
> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
>
> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well
to remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
> Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
> wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do you
> think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler shift
> caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
As for faking, from the paper:
====
E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")" "u"s"i"n"g"
th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e" "t"h"e"m" "i"n"
"t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e"
"M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r"
"d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l"
"v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s"
"o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e"
"o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o"
"i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m" s""1"
"d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n","
"s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s" "t"h"e"
"r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e" "b"e"f"o"r"e"
"b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e" "o"f" "4"3"∞"
"a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
====
So yes, they corrected for both orital motion
and for rotation of the Moon.
BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy
because it can be verified by laser reflection.
But why are you bothering to talk about such detail
when you are going to claim it is all faked anyway?
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d76ff011a410e0$16927$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673516 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> > Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
>> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity
>> >>> Planet Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red
>> >>> shift of light from the Sun to be 638±6 m/s.
>> >>>
>> >>> ??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
>> >>>
>> >>> ??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
>> >>> The equation f? = c
>> >>> where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
>> >>> ?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
>> >
>> >
>> >> That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look
>> >> good.
>> >> It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > This statement says it all!
>> >
>> > According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
>> > all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
>> > involved in the experiments are frauds.
>> >
>> > A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these
>> > credentials:
>> >
>> > On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> > <<
>> > I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
>> > relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
>> > equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
>> > separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few
>> > other biological and physics subjects included.
>> > I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
>> > overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
>> > Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
>>
>> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
>> discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
>> that's the facts man.
>>
>> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
>>
>> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
>
> While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
> remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
>
>> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
>> Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
>> wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do
>> you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler
>> shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
>
> As for faking, from the paper:
> ====
> E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
> r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")" "u"s"i"n"g"
> th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e" "t"h"e"m" "i"n"
> "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e"
> "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r"
> "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l"
> "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s"
> "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e"
> "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o"
> "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m" s""1"
> "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n","
> "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s" "t"h"e"
> "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e" "b"e"f"o"r"e"
> "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e" "o"f" "4"3"∞"
> "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
> ====
>
> So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of the
> Moon.
Ahuh No!
They corrected assuming constant c.
Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
So the experiment was very easy to fake.
Light leaving a star is blue shifted in wavelength. It WAR anywhere is
always its WER plus proper Doppler.
> BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be
> verified by laser reflection.
...and the fact that its reflected light moves at c+2v is 100% certain.
> But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
> to claim it is all faked anyway?
becUASE YOU INDOCTRINATED FOOLS STILL THINK YOU CAN PROVE THE GOD EINSTEIN
CORRECT BY USING CIRCULAR LOGIC.
>
> Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s1u3bb.11ujtjoeq1fggN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673518 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:19:08 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> > Den 20.09.2026 00:32, skrev HenryWilson:
> >> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:49:05 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> The experiment performed by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity
> >> >>> Planet Searcher (HARPS) in 2020 measured the gravitational red
> >> >>> shift of light from the Sun to be 638±6 m/s.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ??/? = v/c = 2.13e-6 where v = 638 m/s
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ??/? = 2.13e-6 means a longer wavelength, that's a red shift.
> >> >>> The equation f? = c
> >> >>> where c is a constant, is always true by definition.
> >> >>> ?f/f = - 2.13e-6 means lower frequency, that's a red shift.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> That experiment is a typically faked attempt to make Einstein look
> >> >> good.
> >> >> It is riddled with wild assumptions and errors.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > This statement says it all!
> >> >
> >> > According Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
> >> > all experiments confirming SR/GR are faked, and all the physicists
> >> > involved in the experiments are frauds.
> >> >
> >> > A rather remarkable claim from a fully qualified physicist with these
> >> > credentials:
> >> >
> >> > On 27.05.2010, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> >> > <<
> >> > I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
> >> > relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
> >> > equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
> >> > separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics with a few
> >> > other biological and physics subjects included.
> >> > I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
> >> > overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research in
> >> > Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty years.
> >>
> >> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you to
> >> discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist but
> >> that's the facts man.
> >>
> >> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
> >>
> >> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
> >
> > While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
> > remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
> >
> >> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
> >> Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
> >> wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why do
> >> you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the Doppler
> >> shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a redshift.
> >
> > As for faking, from the paper:
> > ====
> > E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
> > r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")" "u"s"i"n"g"
> > th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e" "t"h"e"m" "i"n"
> > "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e"
> > "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r"
> > "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l"
> > "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s"
> > "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e"
> > "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o"
> > "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m" s""1"
> > "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n","
> > "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s" "t"h"e"
> > "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e" "b"e"f"o"r"e"
> > "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e" "o"f" "4"3"∞"
> > "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
> > ====
> >
> > So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of the
> > Moon.
>
> Ahuh No!
>
> They corrected assuming constant c.
> Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
> So the experiment was very easy to fake.
So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
done, and should e done.
You need a theoretical framework for that,
and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
If you want to test other theories you need to work those theories out
to the point where you can make predictions.
You haven't done so, so far.
> Light leaving a star is blue shifted in wavelength. It WAR anywhere is
> always its WER plus proper Doppler.
>
> > BTW, the orbit of the Moon is known to mm accuracy because it can be
> > verified by laser reflection.
>
> ...and the fact that its reflected light moves at c+2v is 100% certain.
>
> > But why are you bothering to talk about such detail when you are going
> > to claim it is all faked anyway?
>
> becUASE YOU INDOCTRINATED FOOLS STILL THINK YOU CAN PROVE THE GOD EINSTEIN
> CORRECT BY USING CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Careful! Have you taken your pills?
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d7b4cd2dee9dfa$152$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673565 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you
>> >> to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist
>> >> but that's the facts man.
>> >>
>> >> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
>> >>
>> >> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
>> >
>> > While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
>> > remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
>> >
>> >> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
>> >> Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
>> >> wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why
>> >> do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the
>> >> Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a
>> >> redshift.
>> >
>> > As for faking, from the paper:
>> > ====
>> > E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
>> > r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
>> > "u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
>> > "t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e"
>> > "("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r"
>> > "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d"
>> > "r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e"
>> > "m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t"
>> > "t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d"
>> > "a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2"
>> > "m" s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
>> > "M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
>> > "t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
>> > "b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e"
>> > "o"f" "4"3"∞"
>> > "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
>> > ====
>> >
>> > So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
>> > the Moon.
>>
>> Ahuh No!
>>
>> They corrected assuming constant c.
>> Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
>> So the experiment was very easy to fake.
>
> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
> done, and should e done.
> You need a theoretical framework for that,
You need the correct theoretical framework.
> and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
> You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
>
> Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s1waja.o5ctuphm0u4vN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673611 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>
> >> >> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for you
> >> >> to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real physicist
> >> >> but that's the facts man.
> >> >>
> >> >> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
> >> >>
> >> >> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
> >> >
> >> > While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
> >> > remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
> >> >
> >> >> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to support
> >> >> Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was derived from
> >> >> wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is HARPS. Q: Why
> >> >> do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they could use the
> >> >> Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the sun to fake a
> >> >> redshift.
> >> >
> >> > As for faking, from the paper:
> >> > ====
> >> > E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
> >> > r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
> >> > "u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
> >> > "t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t" "f"r"a"m"e"
> >> > "("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3"," "f"o"r"
> >> > "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e" "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d"
> >> > "r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e"
> >> > "m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e" "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t"
> >> > "t"o" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d"
> >> > "a"l"s"o" "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2"
> >> > "m" s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
> >> > "M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
> >> > "t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
> >> > "b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n" "a"n"g"l"e"
> >> > "o"f" "4"3"∞"
> >> > "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
> >> > ====
> >> >
> >> > So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
> >> > the Moon.
> >>
> >> Ahuh No!
> >>
> >> They corrected assuming constant c.
> >> Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
> >> So the experiment was very easy to fake.
> >
> > So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
> > done, and should e done.
> > You need a theoretical framework for that,
>
> You need the correct theoretical framework.
Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework
can be used to derive a prediction.
(which may of course prove to be incorrect)
Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction
that agrees with what is observed.
Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
(or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
Jan
> > and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
> > You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
> >
>
> > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d86055ed9ae208$7040$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673672 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:32:26 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> You asked for it. I gave you the details. I know it was hard for
>> >> >> you to discover that someone on this NG was actually a real
>> >> >> physicist but that's the facts man.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > (In his modesty, he forgot to mention is doctorate.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My book is worth a dozen PHds...but I wouldn't accept one.
>> >> >
>> >> > While trying to bluff your way into physics you would do well to
>> >> > remember that the correct spelling is PhD.
>> >> >
>> >> >> ...and yes...lots of experiments have been faked in order to
>> >> >> support Einstein. For instance most evidence against Newton was
>> >> >> derived from wrongly interpreted interferometry. Paul's latest is
>> >> >> HARPS. Q: Why do you think they they used moonlight? A: so they
>> >> >> could use the Doppler shift caused by its motion away from the
>> >> >> sun to fake a redshift.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for faking, from the paper:
>> >> > ====
>> >> > E"a"c"h" "s"p"e"c"t"r"u"m" "w"a"s" "c"o"r"r"e"c"t"e"d" "f"o"r"
>> >> > r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y" "("s"e"e" "T"a"b"l"e" "1")"
>> >> > "u"s"i"n"g" th"e" "J"P"L" "e"p"h"e"m"e"r"i"s" "t"o" "p"l"a"c"e"
>> >> > "t"h"e"m" "i"n" "t"h"e" "l"a"b"o"r"a"t"o"r"y" "r"e"s"t"
>> >> > "f"r"a"m"e" "("s"e"e" "M"o"l"a"r"o" "e"t" "a"l"." "2"0"1"3","
>> >> > "f"o"r" "f"u"r"t"h"e"r" "d"e"t"a"i"l"s")"." "T"h"e"
>> >> > "c"o"m"p"u"t"e"d" "r"a"d"i"a"l" "v"e"l"o"c"i"t"y"
>> >> > "a"c"c"o"u"n"t"s" "f"o"r" "t"h"e" "m"o"t"i"o"n"s" "o"f" "t"h"e"
>> >> > "M"o"o"n" "w"i"t"h" "r"e"s"p"e"c"t" "t"o" "t"h"e"
>> >> > "o"b"s"e"r"v"e"r" "a"n"d" "t"h"e" "S"u"n"," "a"n"d" "a"l"s"o"
>> >> > "i"n"c"l"u"d"e"s" "a" "c"o"m"p"o"n"e"n"t" "o"f" "3"."2" "m"
>> >> > s""1" "d"u"e" "t"o" "t"h"e" "r"o"t"a"t"i"o"n" "o"f" "t"h"e"
>> >> > "M"o"o"n"," "s"i"n"c"e" "t"h"e" "s"u"n"l"i"g"h"t" "i"m"p"a"c"t"s"
>> >> > "t"h"e" "r"e"c"e"d"i"n"g" "l"u"n"a"r" "h"e"m"i"s"p"h"e"r"e"
>> >> > "b"e"f"o"r"e" "b"e"i"n"g" "r"e"f"l"e"c"t"e"d" "a"t" "a"n"
>> >> > "a"n"g"l"e"
>> >> > "o"f" "4"3"∞"
>> >> > "a"t" "t"h"e" "t"i"m"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "o"b"s"e"r"v"a"t"i"o"n"." "
>> >> > ====
>> >> >
>> >> > So yes, they corrected for both orbital motion and for rotation of
>> >> > the Moon.
>> >>
>> >> Ahuh No!
>> >>
>> >> They corrected assuming constant c.
>> >> Light reflects from a moving mirror (or moon) at c+/-2v.
>> >> So the experiment was very easy to fake.
>> >
>> > So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is
>> > done, and should e done.
>> > You need a theoretical framework for that,
>>
>> You need the correct theoretical framework.
>
> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used
> to derive a prediction.
> (which may of course prove to be incorrect)
> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is
> observed.
>
> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'.
> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more)
According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for
constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s
By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing,
just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s.
Since light does not oscillate and does not possess a 'frequency'... and
since the light's wave arrival rate MUST be the same as the WER between
object are MAR, which theory is the correct one?
> Jan
>
>
>> > and in -in that framework- you interpret the observations.
>> > You don't throw in some extra unrelated and incompatible hypothesis.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1194bbn$lcvd$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673745 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>> done, and should e done. >>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>> >>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >> >> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used >> to derive a prediction. >> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is >> observed. >> >> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) > > According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for > constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no clue. > By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing, > just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s. Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top of it. You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR. That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <UtecnXcTw-mQWyj3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673746 |
On 09/24/2026 04:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>> done, and should e done. >>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>>> >>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >>> >>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used >>> to derive a prediction. >>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is >>> observed. >>> >>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >> >> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s > > If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has > nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no clue. > >> By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing, >> just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s. > > Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to > relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in > relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top > of it. > > You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational > redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics > studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but > that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of > GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR. > > That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when > the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in > the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before > that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without > finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it. > That's of light's passage not the transit of bodies in their orbits, which are determined by the source of the gravific influence not its image, then that the mass of the bodies has been determined in reverse from the behavior of the orbits, so that "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" accounts of the gravitic (or, gravific) are ignorant any accounts after the "Galilean" which is ignorant any account of spinning bodies their heft, as resistance to acceleration. Then, the actual formulas that give the diffraction, are simply re-written formulas with adding "a factor of 2", since otherwise the previous sort of account could give "the correction" for various reasons, that besides that it's "spurious", then is about lensing and occlusion lensing due light's travel and the pure diffraction, instead of the geodesy or orbifold. I.e., one could just re-write the old formulas and add a "spurious factor of 2" and it would be fudged/fuzzed about the same. About light as entering rotational frames besides gravitating frames, makes for a simple reason that mechanics gives for optics to give that redshift bias/distortion is from accounts of the rotational as much as the gravific. The usual Galilean/Newtonian/Einsteinian of these is just ignorant of rotating frames, rotating frames, and rotating frames. Shame, forsooth, bother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <952cnQwH1tdNWyj3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673747 |
On 09/24/2026 05:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/24/2026 04:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>> done, and should e done. >>>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>>>> >>>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be used >>>> to derive a prediction. >>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what is >>>> observed. >>>> >>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >>> >>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s >> >> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has >> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no >> clue. >> >>> By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing, >>> just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s. >> >> Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to >> relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in >> relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top >> of it. >> >> You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational >> redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics >> studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but >> that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of >> GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR. >> >> That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when >> the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in >> the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before >> that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without >> finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it. >> > > > That's of light's passage not the transit of bodies in their orbits, > which are determined by the source of the gravific influence > not its image, then that the mass of the bodies has been determined > in reverse from the behavior of the orbits, so that "Newtonian" > or "Einsteinian" accounts of the gravitic (or, gravific) are > ignorant any accounts after the "Galilean" which is ignorant > any account of spinning bodies their heft, as resistance to acceleration. > > > Then, the actual formulas that give the diffraction, are simply > re-written formulas with adding "a factor of 2", since otherwise > the previous sort of account could give "the correction" for various > reasons, that besides that it's "spurious", then is about lensing > and occlusion lensing due light's travel and the pure diffraction, > instead of the geodesy or orbifold. > > > I.e., one could just re-write the old formulas and add a "spurious > factor of 2" and it would be fudged/fuzzed about the same. > > > About light as entering rotational frames besides gravitating frames, > makes for a simple reason that mechanics gives for optics to give > that redshift bias/distortion is from accounts of the rotational > as much as the gravific. > > > The usual Galilean/Newtonian/Einsteinian of these is just ignorant > of rotating frames, rotating frames, and rotating frames. > > > Shame, forsooth, bother. > > > Points being "gravity's speed is demonstrably no different than infinite" and "light's speed about occlusions is as of a longer path". Which of course fit the data and are having room in the theory, while the usual account is stuck with DarkMatter/DarkEnergy falsifying it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d904306575c88f$599$2366380$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673746 |
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>> done, and should e done. >>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>>> >>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >>> >>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>> used to derive a prediction. >>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>> is observed. >>> >>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >> >> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s > > If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has > nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no > clue. It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. You preach relativity but know nothing about it. Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. That's where his red shift idea came from. Why don't you try to understand what Einstein did rather than make a fool of yourself. > >> By coincidence, the Newtonian blue shift in wavelength due to slowing, >> just happens to be tyhe same 633m/s. > > Newton's theories do not predict any redshift or blueshift due to > relative motion or gravitation. Newton simply does not discuss light in > relation to motion or gravitation, and he was wrong about light on top > of it. If you read my book in which Newton is considerably upgraded, you will learn what he says about gravity and light. > > You can to some extent use Newtonian reasoning to explain gravitational > redshift (BTDT for an exercise in the first semester of my Astrophysics > studies when I did not know yet how to calculate it based on GR), but > that is only so because in special cases it is a good approximation of > GR. Which is actually the mark of a good new theory, in this case GR. > > That Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong up to a factor of 2 when > the gravitational influences grow larger was demonstrated repeatedly in > the deflection of starlight passing by close to Sol, and even before > that, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury without > finding the proposed planet, Vulcan, to explain it. Mercury's precession does not have a constant rate. It varies chaotically, depending on the positions of the other planets and can go in the opposite direction. There was considerable dispute as to what the value of its precession should be in 1917. .and it was all based on the incorrect constant c model of the universe anyway. No cosmic object is where it is believed to be because calculations all assume constant light speed. The whole of astronomy has to be trashed and rewritten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200 |
| Subject | Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) |
| Message-ID | <119a9s8$182fs$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673802 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>> done, and should e done. >>>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>>>> >>>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>>> used to derive a prediction. >>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>> is observed. >>>> >>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >>> >>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s >> >> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has >> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no >> clue. > > It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are saying. To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct. > You preach relativity but know nothing about it. No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance. > Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard. As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational redshift: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit> > Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense. Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to it). The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural units and Schwarzschild coordinates), ds² = −dτ² = −(1 − 2m∕r) dt² + (1 − 2m∕r)⁻¹ dr² + r² dΩ², m = G M∕c², dΩ² = dθ² + sin²(θ) dφ², where dτ is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval. At relative rest, dr = dΩ = 0: dτ² = (1 − 2m∕r) dt² ⇔ dτ = √(1 − 2m∕r) dt. This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a periodic process or phenomenon with period T, f(r) ∝ 1∕dτ = (1∕dt) 1∕√(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ f(∞)∕√(1 − 2m∕r), where f(∞) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval that elapses there; or wavelength λ(r) ∝ c dτ(r) = c dt √(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ λ(∞) √(1 − 2m∕r). Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii r₂ > r₁ yields f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂) < 1. So the frequency at r₂ is smaller than at r₁. The frequency of reddish light is smaller than that of bluish light: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> So light is measured redshifted at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted at r₂. Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields λ(r₂)∕λ(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₂)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₁) > 1. So the wavelength at r₂ is larger than at r₁. The wavelength of reddish light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted at r₂. We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations> It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black: light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB): <https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA> All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a Newtonian interpretation would predict it. [Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to "gravitational" redshift.] > but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that > light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a wavelength: <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves> Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894 to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless networks and satellite communication. See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television> You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge. > [crackpot fantasies] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift |
| Message-ID | <EhucnTBNKuZs2yT3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673811 |
On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is >>>>>>> done, and should e done. >>>>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, >>>>>> >>>>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be >>>>> used to derive a prediction. >>>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>>> is observed. >>>>> >>>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >>>> >>>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for >>>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s >>> >>> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has >>> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no >>> clue. >> >> It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. > > Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are > saying. > > To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about > for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct. > >> You preach relativity but know nothing about it. > > No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance. > >> Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. > > Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard. > As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to > gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the > deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational > redshift: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit> > >> Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity > > He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term > "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense. > > Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of > mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a > better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the > frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is > measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to > it). > > The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with > total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural > units and Schwarzschild coordinates), > > ds² = −dτ² = −(1 − 2m∕r) dt² + (1 − 2m∕r)⁻¹ dr² + r² dΩ², > m = G M∕c², > dΩ² = dθ² + sin²(θ) dφ², > > where dτ is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval. > > At relative rest, dr = dΩ = 0: > > dτ² = (1 − 2m∕r) dt² ⇔ dτ = √(1 − 2m∕r) dt. > > This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a > periodic process or phenomenon with period T, > > f(r) ∝ 1∕dτ = (1∕dt) 1∕√(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ f(∞)∕√(1 − 2m∕r), > > where f(∞) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center > of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval > that elapses there; or wavelength > > λ(r) ∝ c dτ(r) = c dt √(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ λ(∞) √(1 − 2m∕r). > > Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii r₂ > r₁ yields > > f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂) < 1. > > So the frequency at r₂ is smaller than at r₁. The frequency of reddish > light is smaller than that of bluish light: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> > > So light is measured redshifted at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and > blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted at r₂. > > Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields > > λ(r₂)∕λ(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₂)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₁) > 1. > > So the wavelength at r₂ is larger than at r₁. The wavelength of reddish > light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted > at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted > at r₂. > > We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial > satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are > sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe > gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects > with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole > Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations> > > It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black: > light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is > "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) > and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB): > > <https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA> > > All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a > Newtonian interpretation would predict it. > > [Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient > misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT > gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another > consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to > "gravitational" redshift.] > >> but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that >> light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. > > Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an > electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a > wavelength: > > <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves> > > Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows > down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of > light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the > interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell > postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed > electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894 > to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and > others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II > terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless > networks and satellite communication. > > See also: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television> > > You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge. > >> [crackpot fantasies] > Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields. Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation the thermionic and plain incandescent. So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then, the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength make to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of energy, that that's given how much energy it is. So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot", while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image" is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite. This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time that occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other. The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated usually temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol, readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light. Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays above the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation, with their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as alike rays in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all. So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts as waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and its accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly "optical". Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician. O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes, not just one. The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2" by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's", it's rather simple. For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things" define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift |
| Message-ID | <6AB95004.5CAC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #673815 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > HenryWilson wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> HenryWilson wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is > >>>>>>> done, and should e done. > >>>>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be > >>>>> used to derive a prediction. > >>>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) > >>>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what > >>>>> is observed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. > >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) > >>>> > >>>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for > >>>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s > >>> > >>> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has > >>> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no > >>> clue. > >> > >> It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. > > > > Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are > > saying. > > > > To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about > > for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct. > > > >> You preach relativity but know nothing about it. > > > > No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance. > > > >> Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. > > > > Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard. > > As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to > > gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the > > deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational > > redshift: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit> > > > >> Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity > > > > He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term > > "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense. > > > > Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of > > mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a > > better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the > > frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is > > measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to > > it). > > > > The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with > > total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural > > units and Schwarzschild coordinates), > > > > ds² = −dτ² = −(1 − 2m∕r) dt² + (1 − 2m∕r)â»Â¹ dr² + r² dΩ², > > m = G M∕c², > > dΩ² = dθ² + sin²(θ) dφ², > > > > where dÏ„ is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval. > > > > At relative rest, dr = dΩ = 0: > > > > dτ² = (1 − 2m∕r) dt² ⇔ dÏ„ = √(1 − 2m∕r) dt. > > > > This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a > > periodic process or phenomenon with period T, > > > > f(r) ∠1∕dÏ„ = (1∕dt) 1∕√(1 − 2m∕r) ∠f(∞)∕√(1 − 2m∕r), > > > > where f(∞) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center > > of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval > > that elapses there; or wavelength > > > > λ(r) ∠c dÏ„(r) = c dt √(1 − 2m∕r) ∠λ(∞) √(1 − 2m∕r). > > > > Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii râ‚‚ > râ‚ yields > > > > f(râ‚‚)∕f(râ‚) = √(1 − 2m∕râ‚)∕√(1 − 2m∕râ‚‚) < 1. > > > > So the frequency at râ‚‚ is smaller than at râ‚. The frequency of reddish > > light is smaller than that of bluish light: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> > > > > So light is measured redshifted at râ‚‚ when it is emitted at râ‚, and > > blueshifted at râ‚ when it is emitted at râ‚‚. > > > > Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields > > > > λ(râ‚‚)∕λ(râ‚) = √(1 − 2m∕râ‚‚)∕√(1 − 2m∕râ‚) > 1. > > > > So the wavelength at râ‚‚ is larger than at râ‚. The wavelength of reddish > > light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted > > at râ‚‚ when it is emitted at râ‚, and blueshifted at râ‚ when it is emitted > > at râ‚‚. > > > > We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial > > satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are > > sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe > > gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects > > with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole > > Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations> > > > > It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black: > > light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is > > "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) > > and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB): > > > > <https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA> > > > > All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a > > Newtonian interpretation would predict it. > > > > [Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient > > misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT > > gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another > > consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to > > "gravitational" redshift.] > > > >> but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that > >> light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. > > > > Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an > > electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a > > wavelength: > > > > <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves> > > > > Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows > > down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of > > light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the > > interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell > > postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed > > electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894 > > to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and > > others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II > > terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless > > networks and satellite communication. > > > > See also: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television> > > > > You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge. > > > >> [crackpot fantasies] > > > > Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation > because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields. > > Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical > and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due > structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation > the thermionic and plain incandescent. > > So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then, > the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence > usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength > make to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of > energy, that that's given how much energy it is. > > So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation > are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure > diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot", > while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image" > is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite. > > This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other > uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time > that occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other. > > The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated > usually temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol, > readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light. > > Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays > above the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation, > with their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as > alike rays in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all. > > So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts > as waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and > its accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly > "optical". > > Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician. > > O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal > analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes, > not just one. > > The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2" > by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's", > it's rather simple. > > For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things" > define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy > everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't). The curvature of time...curve-time. Between 12:o'clock and 1:o'clock there is a curve a u-turn the speed of light is curved. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d964b9312c8129$1349$2366380$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673802 |
On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 07:30:48 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: work can be >>>>> used to derive a prediction. >>>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) >>>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what >>>>> is observed. >>>>> >>>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using >>>>> 'Newton'. >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) >>>> >>>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate >>>> for constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s >>> >>> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has >>> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no >>> clue. >> >> It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. > > Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are > saying. Well that's a strange thing for an Einstein fan to say. I'm sure your colleagues wont agree. But you are actually right. As I have pointed out, his second postulate does not claim that light moves through space at the same speed. > To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about > for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct. > >> You preach relativity but know nothing about it. > > No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance. > >> Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. > > Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard. > As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to > gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the > deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational > redshift: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gravitational_lens#Approximate_Newtonian_description> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Newtonian_limit> > >> Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker >> gravity > > He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term > "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense. Lower gravity potential then. > > Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of > mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a > better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the > frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is > measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to > it). Neither Space time nor its curvature proves anything. All it does is state Newton's simple description in a stupid roundabout way. > > The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with > total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural > units and Schwarzschild coordinates), > > ds² = −dτ² = −(1 − 2m∕r) dt² + (1 − 2m∕r)⁻¹ dr² + r² dΩ², m = G M∕c², > dΩ² = dθ² + sin²(θ) dφ², > > where dτ is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval. > > At relative rest, dr = dΩ = 0: > > dτ² = (1 − 2m∕r) dt² ⇔ dτ = √(1 − 2m∕r) dt. > > This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a > periodic process or phenomenon with period T, > > f(r) ∝ 1∕dτ = (1∕dt) 1∕√(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ f(∞)∕√(1 − 2m∕r), > > where f(∞) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center > of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval > that elapses there; or wavelength > > λ(r) ∝ c dτ(r) = c dt √(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ λ(∞) √(1 − 2m∕r). > > Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii r₂ > r₁ yields > > f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂) < 1. > > So the frequency at r₂ is smaller than at r₁. The frequency of reddish > light is smaller than that of bluish light: Light > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> > > So light is measured redshifted at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and > blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted at r₂. > > Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, > yields > > λ(r₂)∕λ(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₂)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₁) > 1. > > So the wavelength at r₂ is larger than at r₁. The wavelength of reddish > light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted > at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted > at r₂. > > We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial > satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are > sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe > gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects > with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole > Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gravitational_redshift#Astronomical_observations> > > It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black: > light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is > "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) > and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB): > > <https://youtu.be/vNaEBbFbvcY?si=d09zljfdLWeBK1sA> > > All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a > Newtonian interpretation would predict it. > > [Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient > misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT > gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another > consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to > "gravitational" redshift.] > >> but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that >> light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. > > Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an > electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a > wavelength: > > <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2- mathematics-of-waves> > > Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows > down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of > light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the > interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell > postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed > electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894 > to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and > others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II > terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless > networks and satellite communication. > > See also: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television> > > You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge. I am years ahead of the current fairytale Physics. It is hard to believe that all those experts you worship can be so terribly wrong about such simple matters. The whole of Astronomy is built on a myth. Physics is more like a religion that a science. If you are so fucking clever, just provide the world with a definition of light's 'frequency' or slink of to your burrow with your tail between your legs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web