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 430 — 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: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:01 +0000
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 HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:22 +0000
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 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0s1xk.1gurlbp1apfgt9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672635 |
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote: > Le 01/09/2026 à 16:09, athel.cb@gmail.com a écrit : > > > crackpots > > Definition: > Crackpot: someone who doesn't think the way we do. > Example : "Doctor Richard Hachel is a crackpot". A mild tap, and listening to the sound it makes will make it at once obvious, to those who can listen, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1788338067-12588@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #672635 |
"Dr" Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> posted: > Le 01/09/2026 à 16:09, athel.cb@gmail.com a écrit : > > > crackpots > > Definition: > Crackpot: someone who doesn't think the way we do. > Example : "Doctor Richard Hachel is a crackpot". > Many a true word spoken in jest. In your previous incarnation I asked you several times which university awarded your doctorate and what your thesis was about, but you have continued to treat that information as secret. Jan suggests that it was self-awarded, but I incline more to a degree mill in the USA, for which a modest fee ($100?) will get you any degree you want. -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0s416.1pmjmf7126e2q0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672628 |
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote: > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted: > > [ lots of good stuff ] > > I have a question for you, Jan, not specifically about Ralph's paradox. > > As you know, I'm not a physicist and never pronounce on things in physics that > I'm not qualified to pronounce on. However, I'm quite skilled at recognizing > opinionated crackpots. Do you have any idea why sci.physics.relativity has > become such a magnet for crackpots? It's almost as bad as talk.origins. It always has been, as far as I can remember. What has changed is that most of the non-crackpots have left. But flooding with crackpots has been a problem for most sci* groups from the very beginning of usenet. There have been some succesful moderated groups, but afaik these are dead too. For t.o., I have been unable to post there with Eternal September no longer working for me, and other providers not being properly configuered for moderated groups. > "Dr" Hachel reappeared a week or so ago after a long and welcome absence, > and, of course, our colleague in Poland is still a permanent feature. > Others have also appeared. Yes, one thread, so far. There has been a hiatus of about half a year in the postings of the self-made "Dr". Two things seem to be infinite in this group. One of them is the patience of the Python, in keeping the "Dr" and you know who occupied. Admirably so, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1178ktg$2jq35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672625 |
Den 01.09.2026 11:45, skrev J. J. Lodder: > Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > >> Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>> anyone can check GPS: the clocks >>> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. >> >> GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. >> >> Two optical clocks start side by side. >> >> One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back >> beside the other. >> >> Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally. >> >> No GPS. >> No distant synchronization. >> No one-way speed of light. >> No coordinate convention. >> At the end, the clocks are again side by side. >> >> So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"? >> >> And what does your theory predict? >> >> N1 = N2 >> >> or >> >> N1 != N2 ? >> >> You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted >> the same number of cycles. >> >> Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim. > > Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that. > The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment > was part of a series. [1] https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can, > and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks. > (it showed the expected relativistic result) https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf The experiment: “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses” is described in pages 708-716 https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf > Next there have been many more, involving mountains, TV towers, etc. > The experiment I mentioned is remarkable only to the point that accuracy > has improved so much that it can nowadays be done > without leaving your room, > > Jan > > [1] This 'flying around the world with clocks' was done only > because (before GPS) there was not other means > of synchronising distant clocks accurately. > (with the appropriate relativistic corrections applied of course) > > Synchronised clocks at radio observatories were used > (among other things) > to triangulate the positions of Apollo capsules on the way to the Moon > from reception times of radio signals. > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d1720de9722289$2514274$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672659 |
On 9/2/2026 9:58 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.09.2026 11:45, skrev J. J. Lodder: >> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>> anyone can check GPS: the clocks >>>> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. >>> >>> GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. >>> >>> Two optical clocks start side by side. >>> >>> One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back >>> beside the other. >>> >>> Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally. >>> >>> No GPS. >>> No distant synchronization. >>> No one-way speed of light. >>> No coordinate convention. >>> At the end, the clocks are again side by side. >>> >>> So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"? >>> >>> And what does your theory predict? >>> >>> N1 = N2 >>> >>> or >>> >>> N1 != N2 ? >>> >>> You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted >>> the same number of cycles. >>> >>> Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim. >> >> Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that. >> The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment >> was part of a series. [1] > > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > >> They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can, >> and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks. >> (it showed the expected relativistic result) > > https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf > The experiment: “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields > with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses” is described in > pages 708-716 > > https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf > >> Next there have been many more, involving mountains, TV towers, etc. >> The experiment I mentioned is remarkable only to the point that accuracy >> has improved so much that it can nowadays be done >> without leaving your room, >> >> Jan >> >> [1] This 'flying around the world with clocks' was done only >> because (before GPS) there was not other means >> of synchronising distant clocks accurately. >> (with the appropriate relativistic corrections applied of course) >> >> Synchronised clocks at radio observatories were used >> (among other things) >> to triangulate the positions of Apollo capsules on the way to the Moon >> from reception times of radio signals. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d17232744cd619$2514275$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672659 |
On 9/2/2026 9:58 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.09.2026 11:45, skrev J. J. Lodder: >> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>> anyone can check GPS: the clocks >>>> you're proposing are unusable for a direct measurement. >>> >>> GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. >>> >>> Two optical clocks start side by side. >>> >>> One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back >>> beside the other. >>> >>> Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally. >>> >>> No GPS. >>> No distant synchronization. >>> No one-way speed of light. >>> No coordinate convention. >>> At the end, the clocks are again side by side. >>> >>> So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"? >>> >>> And what does your theory predict? >>> >>> N1 = N2 >>> >>> or >>> >>> N1 != N2 ? >>> >>> You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted >>> the same number of cycles. >>> >>> Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim. >> >> Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that. >> The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment >> was part of a series. [1] > > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > >> They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can, >> and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks. >> (it showed the expected relativistic result) > > https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf > The experiment: “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields > with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses” is described in > pages 708-716 > > https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf It's rather obvious that according to your moronic religion it is proper when it fits your moronic religion. So - what? In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your moronic religion "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d1912bd49557d7$365$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672659 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.09.2026 11:45, skrev J. J. Lodder: >> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>>> anyone can check GPS: the clocks you're proposing are unusable for a >>>> direct measurement. >>> >>> GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment. >>> >>> Two optical clocks start side by side. >>> >>> One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back >>> beside the other. >>> >>> Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally. >>> >>> No GPS. >>> No distant synchronization. >>> No one-way speed of light. >>> No coordinate convention. >>> At the end, the clocks are again side by side. >>> >>> So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"? >>> >>> And what does your theory predict? >>> >>> N1 = N2 >>> >>> or >>> >>> N1 != N2 ? >>> >>> You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted >>> the same number of cycles. >>> >>> Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim. >> >> Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that. >> The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment was >> part of a series. [1] > > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf You don't really believe that stuff do you Paul? For one thing, there is NO 'gravitational redshift'.For another the clocks negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very different rates in the opposite directions. These experiments were easily faked or misinterpreted. And there was considerable incentive to do just that. >> They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can, >> and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks. >> (it showed the expected relativistic result) ...and jesus christ walked on water and cured a blind man with a wave of his hand...didn't you know that? > https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf The experiment: “Proper Time > Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and > Laser Light Pulses” is described in pages 708-716 > > https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on constant light speed. > >> [1] This 'flying around the world with clocks' was done only because >> (before GPS) there was not other means of synchronising distant clocks >> accurately. >> (with the appropriate relativistic corrections applied of course) Your 'relativistic corrections merely cancel the built in errors of the constant c model and restore Newton. >> Synchronised clocks at radio observatories were used (among other >> things) >> to triangulate the positions of Apollo capsules on the way to the Moon >> from reception times of radio signals. Fortunately, local radar took over when they got there. ...And what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are never allowed to be published?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uj_Wv_75gqcg0Rzq1Z-HRFDvYz4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672691 |
Le 02/09/2026 à 19:29, HenryWilson a écrit :
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 01.09.2026 11:45, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 31/08/2026 à 22:38, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit :
>>>>> anyone can check GPS: the clocks you're proposing are unusable for a
>>>>> direct measurement.
>>>>
>>>> GPS has nothing to do with Jan's experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Two optical clocks start side by side.
>>>>
>>>> One is raised by 30 cm, kept there for some time, then brought back
>>>> beside the other.
>>>>
>>>> Then their accumulated cycle difference is compared locally.
>>>>
>>>> No GPS.
>>>> No distant synchronization.
>>>> No one-way speed of light.
>>>> No coordinate convention.
>>>> At the end, the clocks are again side by side.
>>>>
>>>> So what, precisely, makes them "unusable for a direct measurement"?
>>>>
>>>> And what does your theory predict?
>>>>
>>>> N1 = N2
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> N1 != N2 ?
>>>>
>>>> You already said that reunited clocks "obviously" must have counted
>>>> the same number of cycles.
>>>>
>>>> Jan has just described an experiment testing exactly that claim.
>>>
>>> Yes, and only a recent one. It is much older than that.
>>> The much publicised Hafele and Keating 'round the world' experiment was
>>> part of a series. [1]
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf
>
> You don't really believe that stuff do you Paul?
> For one thing, there is NO 'gravitational redshift'.For another the clocks
> negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very different rates in the
> opposite directions. These experiments were easily faked or
> misinterpreted. And there was considerable incentive to do just that.
>
>>> They also did a: 'go up, fly as long and as high as you can,
>>> and return to base' experiment with those HP portable clocks.
>>> (it showed the expected relativistic result)
>
> ...and jesus christ walked on water and cured a blind man with a wave of
> his hand...didn't you know that?
>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf The experiment: “Proper Time
>> Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and
>> Laser Light Pulses” is described in pages 708-716
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>
> all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on
> constant light speed.
>
>>
>>> [1] This 'flying around the world with clocks' was done only because
>>> (before GPS) there was not other means of synchronising distant clocks
>>> accurately.
>>> (with the appropriate relativistic corrections applied of course)
>
> Your 'relativistic corrections merely cancel the built in errors of the
> constant c model and restore Newton.
>
>>> Synchronised clocks at radio observatories were used (among other
>>> things)
>>> to triangulate the positions of Apollo capsules on the way to the Moon
>>> from reception times of radio signals.
>
> Fortunately, local radar took over when they got there.
>
> ...And what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are never
> allowed to be published?
Ralph,
This is almost too perfect.
We were just discussing whether your theory is experimentally
falsifiable, and you have now supplied a practical demonstration
of the problem.
Hafele-Keating agrees with relativity:
"easily faked or misinterpreted"
Aircraft clock experiments agree:
Jesus walked on water.
Rocket experiment agrees:
position measurements assumed constant c.
Other navigation experiments agree:
relativistic corrections merely cancel the errors.
And finally:
> what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are
> never allowed to be published?
So the evidential rules are now beautifully complete:
experiment agrees with Einstein
-> fake, misinterpreted, circular, or corrected into agreement
experiment disagrees with Einstein
-> suppressed and therefore invisible
There is literally no possible experimental evidence that could
survive this filter.
But your magnetic-field explanation is much more interesting,
because unlike "they faked it", it could actually be physics.
You say:
> the clocks negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very
> different rates in the opposite directions.
Excellent.
Then quantify it.
What magnetic-field dependence do the clocks have?
What frequency shift does it produce?
Integrate it over the eastward and westward trajectories.
What time offsets do you predict at reunion?
Then compare those numbers with the measured offsets.
That would be an alternative physical explanation.
"The Earth's magnetic field exists" is not one.
Likewise:
> There is NO 'gravitational redshift'.
Capital letters are again being asked to perform experimental
work.
The nice thing about modern clock experiments is that we don't
need aircraft, GPS, distant synchronization, or one-way light
speed for the essential test.
Put two clocks together.
Raise one.
Compare their rates.
Bring it back.
Compare them locally.
Your theory says the gravitational potential itself produces no
gravitational frequency shift.
GR gives a quantitative prediction.
So give yours.
If your answer is:
any observed difference is an imperfect clock,
then we are back exactly where we started.
And this:
> what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are
> never allowed to be published?
has a wonderfully convenient epistemology.
You don't need to show the experiments, because their absence is
evidence that they exist.
The fewer we can find, the more efficiently they must have been
suppressed.
At perfect suppression the evidence becomes infinite.
That's not experimental physics, Ralph.
That's a conspiracy theory with error bars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d1f40f09aaee3e$831$1666339$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672707 |
On Wed, 02 Sep 26 20:46:30 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 02/09/2026 à 19:29, HenryWilson a écrit : >> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> > > This is almost too perfect. > > We were just discussing whether your theory is experimentally > falsifiable, and you have now supplied a practical demonstration of the > problem. > > Hafele-Keating agrees with relativity: > > "easily faked or misinterpreted" > > Aircraft clock experiments agree: > > Jesus walked on water. > > Rocket experiment agrees: > > position measurements assumed constant c. > > Other navigation experiments agree: > > relativistic corrections merely cancel the errors. > > And finally: > >> what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are never >> allowed to be published? > > So the evidential rules are now beautifully complete: > > experiment agrees with Einstein > -> fake, misinterpreted, circular, or corrected into agreement > > experiment disagrees with Einstein > -> suppressed and therefore invisible > > There is literally no possible experimental evidence that could survive > this filter. Would then recommend that a journal should publish my Paradox even though it clearly and unquestionably proves Einstein's second postulate to be impossible > > But your magnetic-field explanation is much more interesting, because > unlike "they faked it", it could actually be physics. > > You say: > >> the clocks negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very different rates >> in the opposite directions. > > Excellent. > > Then quantify it. > > What magnetic-field dependence do the clocks have? Apparently just the right amount to make the HK result STATISTICALY feasible. > What frequency shift does it produce? the sky is the limit. > Integrate it over the eastward and westward trajectories. > > What time offsets do you predict at reunion? > > Then compare those numbers with the measured offsets. > > That would be an alternative physical explanation. > > "The Earth's magnetic field exists" is not one. So would you recommend that journals should publish that very important idea even though it refutes the HK and Einstein? > > Likewise: > >> There is NO 'gravitational redshift'. > > Capital letters are again being asked to perform experimental work. > > The nice thing about modern clock experiments is that we don't need > aircraft, GPS, distant synchronization, or one-way light speed for the > essential test. > > Put two clocks together. > > Raise one. > > Compare their rates. > > Bring it back. > > Compare them locally. > > Your theory says the gravitational potential itself produces no > gravitational frequency shift. > > GR gives a quantitative prediction. > > So give yours. > > If your answer is: > > any observed difference is an imperfect clock, Correct. Do you know that a one metre vertical steel rod will increase length by the order of e-7m when sent into free fall. Your GR redshift is in the e-16 region...very easy to fake. Anyway the GR effect is a blue shift. > then we are back exactly where we started.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117e2b6$g0uj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672743 |
On 04/09/2026 02:41, HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 02 Sep 26 20:46:30 +0000, Python wrote: > >> Le 02/09/2026 à 19:29, HenryWilson a écrit : >>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> > >> >> This is almost too perfect. >> >> We were just discussing whether your theory is experimentally >> falsifiable, and you have now supplied a practical demonstration of the >> problem. >> >> Hafele-Keating agrees with relativity: >> >> "easily faked or misinterpreted" >> >> Aircraft clock experiments agree: >> >> Jesus walked on water. >> >> Rocket experiment agrees: >> >> position measurements assumed constant c. >> >> Other navigation experiments agree: >> >> relativistic corrections merely cancel the errors. >> >> And finally: >> >>> what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are never >>> allowed to be published? >> >> So the evidential rules are now beautifully complete: >> >> experiment agrees with Einstein >> -> fake, misinterpreted, circular, or corrected into agreement >> >> experiment disagrees with Einstein >> -> suppressed and therefore invisible >> >> There is literally no possible experimental evidence that could survive >> this filter. > > Would then recommend that a journal should publish my Paradox even though > it clearly and unquestionably proves Einstein's second postulate to be > impossible The world as it is is not impossible. Do you mean "impossible to imaginte"? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <w_GImGyHBuU7l1npafg--zo6F8Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672743 |
Ralph,
> Apparently just the right amount to make the HK result
> STATISTICALY feasible.
Wonderful.
And when I ask:
> What frequency shift does it produce?
your quantitative prediction is:
> the sky is the limit.
That rather beautifully completes the theory.
Your magnetic explanation now predicts:
whatever number the experiment happened to measure.
That is not an alternative prediction.
It is an explanation manufactured AFTER seeing the result.
If you want the Earth's magnetic field to explain Hafele-Keating,
give me BEFORE looking at the clock residuals:
magnetic field along trajectory
-> clock frequency shift
-> integrated eastward offset
-> integrated westward offset.
Numbers.
Then we compare them with experiment.
"The sky is the limit" can fit absolutely anything.
Which means it predicts absolutely nothing.
> So would you recommend that journals should publish that very
> important idea even though it refutes the HK and Einstein?
What idea?
"The Earth's magnetic field somehow produces just the right
amount"?
There is nothing to publish yet.
Give the dependence of clock frequency on magnetic field and
calculate the predicted offsets.
If it works, THAT would be interesting and publishable.
A mechanism with no equation and an adjustable effect extending
from zero to "the sky is the limit" is not a refutation.
It is a universal curve-fitting parameter.
> Correct.
> Do you know that a one metre vertical steel rod will increase
> length by the order of e-7m when sent into free fall. Your GR
> redshift is in the e-16 region...very easy to fake.
This is an excellent non sequitur.
A steel rod changes length by X.
Therefore an atomic transition frequency can change by any
amount required to imitate gravitational redshift.
Missing from between those two sentences is, unfortunately,
the physics.
Again: calculate it.
What perturbation of the relevant atomic energy levels does your
proposed mechanical effect produce?
What fractional frequency shift?
If the answer is again
whatever is necessary to explain the observation,
we have learned nothing.
> Anyway the GR effect is a blue shift.
Relative to WHAT, Ralph?
A higher clock runs faster than a lower clock in the weak
terrestrial gravitational field.
So specify which clock emits, which receives, and which frequency
you are comparing before announcing "red" or "blue".
But the most important sentence in your reply is still:
> any observed difference is an imperfect clock,
>
> Correct.
Thank you.
That answers the falsifiability question much more efficiently
than another twenty posts could.
Prediction:
perfect clocks at different gravitational potentials
show no intrinsic gravitational rate difference.
Experiment finds a difference?
Then the clocks weren't perfect.
Experiment finds the GR value?
Then their imperfections happened to imitate GR.
Ask how large the imperfection should be?
"The sky is the limit."
That isn't an experimentally testable theory.
It's an experimental result disposal system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d23c255c68b4fd$1022$1420243$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672753 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 26 10:25:38 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> Apparently just the right amount to make the HK result STATISTICALY >> feasible. > "The sky is the limit" can fit absolutely anything. > > Which means it predicts absolutely nothing. > > >> So would you recommend that journals should publish that very important >> idea even though it refutes the HK and Einstein? > > What idea? > > "The Earth's magnetic field somehow produces just the right amount"? > > There is nothing to publish yet. Well try to publish this: "Physicist Henry Wilson has very wisely suggested that the process of negotiating the Earth's magnetic field at different rates might have sufficiently influenced the clocks used in the HK experiment to allow its result to be statistically manipulated to favour Einstein,...in other words FAKED. This journal welcomes your comments...and humbly apologizes for even mildly suggesting that the god Einstein could be wrong." > > Give the dependence of clock frequency on magnetic field and calculate > the predicted offsets. > > If it works, THAT would be interesting and publishable. > > A mechanism with no equation and an adjustable effect extending from > zero to "the sky is the limit" is not a refutation. > It is a universal curve-fitting parameter. > > >> Correct. >> Do you know that a one metre vertical steel rod will increase length by >> the order of e-7m when sent into free fall. Your GR redshift is in the >> e-16 region...very easy to fake. > > This is an excellent non sequitur. > > A steel rod changes length by X. Work it out yourself, I did but I cannot remamber the exact figure, just the e-7...which depends on the YM anyway. > Therefore an atomic transition frequency can change by any amount > required to imitate gravitational redshift. > > Missing from between those two sentences is, unfortunately, > the physics. > > Again: calculate it. > > What perturbation of the relevant atomic energy levels does your > proposed mechanical effect produce? Possibly none. but it coujld would affect the secondary 'clock' > What fractional frequency shift? What freuency are you talking about? > If the answer is again > > whatever is necessary to explain the observation, > > we have learned nothing. Such circular logic is the basis of you SR..so it also teaches nothing. >> Anyway the GR effect is a blue shift. > > Relative to WHAT, Ralph? > > A higher clock runs faster than a lower clock in the weak terrestrial > gravitational field. An old pendulum clock would run a lot slower. > So specify which clock emits, which receives, and which frequency you > are comparing before announcing "red" or "blue". There is no frequency to compare. There is wavelength..longer or shorter. > That answers the falsifiability question much more efficiently than > another twenty posts could. > > Prediction: > > perfect clocks at different gravitational potentials show no > intrinsic gravitational rate difference. > > Experiment finds a difference? > > Then the clocks weren't perfect. > > Experiment finds the GR value? But it didn't.. > Then their imperfections happened to imitate GR. > > Ask how large the imperfection should be? > > "The sky is the limit." > > That isn't an experimentally testable theory. > > It's an experimental result disposal system. That was created to trash Einstein refutations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0TDo_eXP6RNgnlbgYdUmI9riS6Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672807 |
Ralph,
this is becoming much easier.
Let's collect what happened when I asked you to quantify your
alternative explanations.
1. THE MAGNETIC FIELD
Your original suggestion was that negotiating the Earth's magnetic
field at different rates might have affected the Hafele-Keating
clocks sufficiently to make the result agree with relativity.
Fine.
I asked:
What is the dependence of the clock rate on magnetic field?
Your answer is still:
no equation.
I asked:
How large is the predicted effect?
Still:
no number.
I asked:
Does it predict the eastward and westward offsets?
Still:
no calculation.
But now you want a journal to publish:
perhaps it was large enough,
therefore the result may have been FAKED.
That's not evidence of fakery.
That's an uncalculated hypothesis followed by an accusation.
If you seriously suspect a magnetic systematic, the procedure is
wonderfully boring:
magnetic field along trajectory
|
v
response of the actual clock to that field
|
v
integrate frequency perturbation over flight
|
v
predicted accumulated clock offset.
Then compare that number with the observations.
Do that and you have physics.
Skip all four steps and write "FAKED" in capitals and you have
Usenet.
2. THE STEEL ROD
I asked how the deformation of a steel rod produces the required
clock-frequency shift.
You now answer:
> Possibly none.
Excellent.
Then your steel-rod calculation establishes precisely nothing
about the atomic frequency standard.
You continue:
> but it coujld would affect the secondary 'clock'
Then calculate THAT effect.
Which component?
By what mechanism?
By how much?
With what sign?
Again, a dimensional comparison such as
rod deformation ~ 10^-7 m
versus
fractional clock effect ~ 10^-16
doesn't establish anything.
They don't even have the same dimensions.
10^-7 metres is not "much larger" than 10^-16 as a fractional
frequency shift in any physically meaningful sense.
That is like saying:
my table is 2 metres long;
therefore it can easily fake a 10^-9 voltage measurement.
You need a coupling mechanism and a calculation.
3. FREQUENCY
I asked:
> What fractional frequency shift?
You reply:
> What freuency are you talking about?
The clock frequency, Ralph.
The quantity whose accumulation makes a clock a clock.
For a periodic oscillator, schematically,
f = number of cycles / elapsed time.
A frequency standard realizes time by accumulating phase/cycles.
If two otherwise identical clocks accumulate cycles at slightly
different rates,
Δf/f
is their fractional frequency difference.
Integrating that rate difference gives the accumulated time
difference.
This is elementary frequency metrology.
4. AND THEN THIS:
> There is no frequency to compare. There is wavelength..
> longer or shorter.
Of course there is a frequency to compare.
Electromagnetic radiation has both frequency and wavelength.
Locally in vacuum,
c = f lambda.
A receiver can compare received frequency with a local frequency
reference.
Indeed, gravitational redshift experiments are commonly expressed
as FRACTIONAL FREQUENCY SHIFTS:
Δf/f.
Atomic-clock comparisons are frequency comparisons.
Saying
"there is no frequency to compare"
doesn't refute gravitational redshift.
It rather dramatically removes the physical quantity that atomic
clocks are designed to compare.
5. THE PENDULUM
> An old pendulum clock would run a lot slower.
Exactly!
And this beautifully demonstrates why
whatever a clock indicates = time
is useless.
A pendulum clock changes rate with local gravitational acceleration
because its mechanism obeys approximately
T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g).
Move it upward and its mechanical rate changes.
An atomic clock is governed by completely different physics.
Therefore merely saying
"a clock changed rate"
doesn't identify the cause.
We calculate the mundane instrumental effects and compare them
with the relativistic prediction.
That's metrology.
6. HAFELE-KEATING
I wrote:
> Experiment finds the GR value?
You reply:
> But it didn't..
Good.
Then give the numbers.
Not:
it didn't.
Give:
relativistic prediction = ...
measured result = ...
uncertainty = ...
And if you claim a magnetic correction:
magnetic prediction = ...
Then we can see whether the experiment disagrees with relativity
and whether your alternative explains the discrepancy better.
That is precisely what I have been asking you to do.
7. FINALLY
> That was created to trash Einstein refutations.
No, Ralph.
A demand for quantitative predictions is not an
Einstein-protection device.
It works equally well against Einstein.
If GR predicts
X +/- sigma
and a controlled experiment repeatedly measures
Y
with
|X-Y| >> sigma,
then GR has a problem.
Wonderful.
Show it.
But your current method is:
observation agrees approximately with relativity
-> perhaps magnetism;
calculate magnetism?
-> no;
perhaps mechanical deformation;
calculate effect on atomic transition?
-> possibly none;
calculate secondary-clock effect?
-> no;
measured frequency shift?
-> "there is no frequency";
nevertheless:
-> FAKED.
That's not an Einstein refutation being suppressed.
It's a hypothesis evaporating every time somebody asks it
for a number.
You said earlier:
"the sky is the limit."
That remains the fundamental problem.
A theory whose correction can be anything from zero to whatever
value is required can explain every experiment after the event.
And therefore predicts none of them before it.
Einstein doesn't need an experimental result disposal system here.
You have constructed one yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d25349ed58f5ad$1862$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672813 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 26 23:50:52 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > > this is becoming much easier. > > Let's collect what happened when I asked you to quantify your > alternative explanations. > > > 1. THE MAGNETIC FIELD > > Your original suggestion was that negotiating the Earth's magnetic field > at different rates might have affected the Hafele-Keating clocks > sufficiently to make the result agree with relativity. > > Fine. > > I asked: > > What is the dependence of the clock rate on magnetic field? > > Your answer is still: I dunno and I'm not in a position to find out why. > no equation. > > I asked: > > How large is the predicted effect? > > Still: > > no number. I dunno and I'm not in a position to find out why. > > I asked: > > Does it predict the eastward and westward offsets? > > Still: > > no calculation. I dunno and I'm not in a position to find out why. > But now you want a journal to publish: > > perhaps it was large enough, > therefore the result may have been FAKED. > > That's not evidence of fakery. > > That's an uncalculated hypothesis followed by an accusation. My whole point is that there are possibly many factors that might affect this experiment and haven't been taken into account..or have been quietly considered and manipulated to produce a desired answer. When very small numbers and statistics are involved and the desired answer is known, is is not hard to fiddle a result. When you read my bok you wil amazed at all the things modern physics knows nothing about. > > If you seriously suspect a magnetic systematic, the procedure is > wonderfully boring: > > magnetic field along trajectory > | > v > response of the actual clock to that field > | > v > integrate frequency perturbation over flight > | > v > predicted accumulated clock offset. > > Then compare that number with the observations. > > Do that and you have physics. The experiment claimed that the clocks experienced exactly the same conditions. I have revealed one possibly crucial factor that was not considered. How many more are there? > > Skip all four steps and write "FAKED" in capitals and you have Usenet. > > > 2. THE STEEL ROD > > I asked how the deformation of a steel rod produces the required > clock-frequency shift. > > You now answer: > >> Possibly none. > > Excellent. > > Then your steel-rod calculation establishes precisely nothing about the > atomic frequency standard. It was an example of the way free fall can affect physical properties by significant amounts. If you knew the basics of an atomic clock your would soon recognize several areas where free fall could make a big difference. For instance the dimensions of a very finely tuned cavity. > You continue: > >> but it coujld would affect the secondary 'clock' > > Then calculate THAT effect. > > Which component? > By what mechanism? > By how much? > With what sign? > > Again, a dimensional comparison such as > > rod deformation ~ 10^-7 m > > versus > > fractional clock effect ~ 10^-16 > > doesn't establish anything. > > They don't even have the same dimensions. The side of a tuned cavity does. > 10^-7 metres is not "much larger" than 10^-16 as a fractional frequency > shift in any physically meaningful sense. HAHAHAAAHA! 10^9 is not much larger than 1? YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ATOMIC CLOCKS, MATHS OR PHYSICS. > That is like saying: > > my table is 2 metres long; > therefore it can easily fake a 10^-9 voltage measurement. > > You need a coupling mechanism and a calculation. > > > 3. FREQUENCY > > I asked: > >> What fractional frequency shift? > > You reply: > >> What freuency are you talking about? > > The clock frequency, Ralph. And what part of the clock has a 'frequency'? > The quantity whose accumulation makes a clock a clock. > > For a periodic oscillator, schematically, > > f = number of cycles / elapsed time. > > A frequency standard realizes time by accumulating phase/cycles. > > If two otherwise identical clocks accumulate cycles at slightly > different rates, > > Δf/f > > is their fractional frequency difference. > > Integrating that rate difference gives the accumulated time difference. > > This is elementary frequency metrology. Im surprised you could even do that. Why don't you go quietly away and learn how atomic clocks work. > > > 4. AND THEN THIS: > >> There is no frequency to compare. There is wavelength.. >> longer or shorter. > > Of course there is a frequency to compare. > > Electromagnetic radiation has both frequency and wavelength. Define that frequency please. Give it a value. > Locally in vacuum, > > c = f lambda. > > A receiver can compare received frequency with a local frequency > reference. And how would that reference be calibrated..by comparing it with an atomic clock? . > Indeed, gravitational redshift experiments are commonly expressed as > FRACTIONAL FREQUENCY SHIFTS: > > Δf/f. Please specify what oscillation dettermines those frequencies > Atomic-clock comparisons are frequency comparisons. A clock is NOT a frequency meter. > Saying > > "there is no frequency to compare" > > doesn't refute gravitational redshift. Well just define the frequency and I will consider my answer. > > It rather dramatically removes the physical quantity that atomic clocks > are designed to compare. > > > 5. THE PENDULUM > >> An old pendulum clock would run a lot slower. > > Exactly! > > And this beautifully demonstrates why > > whatever a clock indicates = time > > is useless. > > A pendulum clock changes rate with local gravitational acceleration > because its mechanism obeys approximately > > T = 2 pi sqrt(L/g). > > Move it upward and its mechanical rate changes. > > I was being facetious, Do you think I don't knnw that. > 6. HAFELE-KEATING > > I wrote: > >> Experiment finds the GR value? > > You reply: > >> But it didn't. > Good. The GR value was already known. It didn't need to be found. It just had to be matched....and that was easy.just introduce statistics! > Then give the numbers. > > Not: > > it didn't. > > Give: > > relativistic prediction = ... > measured result = ... > uncertainty = ... > > And if you claim a magnetic correction: > > magnetic prediction = ... > > Then we can see whether the experiment disagrees with relativity and > whether your alternative explains the discrepancy better. > > That is precisely what I have been asking you to do. Wel I have now asked you to do several things and if you don't I wont believe anything you say. > > > 7. FINALLY > >> That was created to trash Einstein refutations. > > No, Ralph. > > A demand for quantitative predictions is not an Einstein-protection > device. > > It works equally well against Einstein. > > If GR predicts > > X +/- sigma > > and a controlled experiment repeatedly measures > > Y > > with > > |X-Y| >> sigma, > > then GR has a problem. > > Wonderful. > > Show it You just don't get it. As I just explained to Paul Andersen. There are many examples where Einstein and Newton predict the same numerical answer...but the former gentleman does so for the wrong reasons and with the wrong interpretations. When you read my book you will discover some of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117ci1o$771$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672691 |
Den 02.09.2026 19:29, skrev HenryWilson: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf >> https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf > > You don't really believe that stuff do you Paul? No, I don't _believe_ anything. I _know_ the results of the Hafele & Keating experiment, and I _know_ that the results of the experiment are in accordance with the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity within the error bars. The error bars are in the order of ±50% for the eastward going plane and in the order of ±10% for the westward going plane. The H&K experiment doesn't prove GR, but it does confirm GR and does not falsify GR. > For one thing, there is NO 'gravitational redshift'.For another the clocks > negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very different rates in the > opposite directions. These experiments were easily faked or > misinterpreted. And there was considerable incentive to do just that. You don't really believe that the hundreds of physicists who have experimentally tested SR and GR all have faked their results, do you? >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf > > all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on > constant light speed. You are plane wrong. Only frequencies were measured in the experiment. A signal was sent to the rocket, and was reflected (by a transponder) and sent back to the ground. The Doppler shift was measured, and this Doppler shift is only caused by the motion of the rocket because any gravitational effect will cancel in the two way measurement. A signal from a H-maser was sent from the rocket to the ground. Half of the above two way Doppler shift was subtracted from this signal. The difference is then the gravitational blue shift. See FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. If you really are an engineer, you should be able to understand it. FIG.3. shows the predicted and the result of the experiment. Note that the 'residuals' is the difference between the predicted and measured values. Note that the residual at the turning point of the rocket is |Δf/f| < 1e-13 while the predicted value is Δf/f = 4.3e-10. The blue shift at the turning point of the rocket is measured to be Δf/f = 4.3e-10. Nothing whatsoever is assumed about the speed of light. Make my day. Claim that Vessot faked the experiment. > > ...And what about all the experiments that refute Einstein but are never > allowed to be published? > This is quite funny! :-D "I am sure that many experiments have falsified SR and GR. I have never seen such an experiment, but that is only because they are not allowed to be published." Ralph, who can deny papers to be published? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d23dbe6f1b5719$1386$1420243$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672738 |
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 21:33:49 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.09.2026 19:29, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> You don't really believe that stuff do you Paul? > > No, I don't _believe_ anything. > I _know_ the results of the Hafele & Keating experiment, > and I _know_ that the results of the experiment are in accordance with > the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity within the error > bars. > The error bars are in the order of ±50% for the eastward going plane and > in the order of ±10% for the westward going plane. > > The H&K experiment doesn't prove GR, but it does confirm GR and does not > falsify GR. It merely exemplifies the fact that if you are indoctrinated beyond the point of no return and you know the answer you want you can always find a way to produce it. >> For one thing, there is NO 'gravitational redshift'.For another the >> clocks negotiate the Earth's magnetic field at very different rates in >> the opposite directions. These experiments were easily faked or >> misinterpreted. And there was considerable incentive to do just that. > > You don't really believe that the hundreds of physicists who have > experimentally tested SR and GR all have faked their results, > do you? Well, it was more the interpretations than the results themselves. For instance all interferometry experiments were deviously designed to automatically favour Einstein. >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf >> >> all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on >> constant light speed. > > You are plane wrong. > Only frequencies were measured in the experiment. Frequencies of what? Wave arrival rates? > A signal was sent to the rocket, and was reflected (by a transponder) > and sent back to the ground. The Doppler shift was measured, and this > Doppler shift is only caused by the motion of the rocket because any > gravitational effect will cancel in the two way measurement. It wouldn't. 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) does not equal 1/c, a common mistake made by amateurs. > A signal from a H-maser was sent from the rocket to the ground. At c or c+v? > Half of the above two way Doppler shift was subtracted from this signal. > The difference is then the gravitational blue shift. > > See FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. > If you really are an engineer, you should be able to understand it. > > FIG.3. shows the predicted and the result of the experiment. > Note that the 'residuals' is the difference between the predicted and > measured values. Note that the residual at the turning point of the > rocket is |Δf/f| < 1e-13 while the predicted value is Δf/f = 4.3e-10. > > The blue shift at the turning point of the rocket is measured to be Δf/f > = 4.3e-10. At the turning point the rocket and ground are MAR. The wave arrival rate must equal the wave emission rate. There can be no frequency shift at that point. > Nothing whatsoever is assumed about the speed of light. > > Make my day. > Claim that Vessot faked the experiment. Paul, they new the answer they wanted. It wasn't hard to make out the got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117pli5$epsg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672808 |
Den 05.09.2026 00:11, skrev HenryWilson: > On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 21:33:49 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 02.09.2026 19:29, skrev HenryWilson: DON'T SNIP THE ATTRIBUTION LINES! >>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf >>> >>> all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on >>> constant light speed. >> >> You are plane wrong. >> Only frequencies were measured in the experiment. > > Frequencies of what? Why do you pretend to be an idiot? > Wave arrival rates? Do you mean that when a receiver receives a monochromatic em-wave then it is receiving several waves at the wave arrival rate? You are not pretending! > >> A signal was sent to the rocket, and was reflected (by a transponder) >> and sent back to the ground. The Doppler shift was measured, and this >> Doppler shift is only caused by the motion of the rocket because any >> gravitational effect will cancel in the two way measurement. > > It wouldn't. 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) does not equal 1/c, a common mistake made > by amateurs. So any gravitational effect will not cancel in the two way measurement because 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) does not equal 1/c? :-D > >> A signal from a H-maser was sent from the rocket to the ground. > > At c or c+v? > >> Half of the above two way Doppler shift was subtracted from this signal. >> The difference is then the gravitational blue shift. >> >> See FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. >> If you really are an engineer, you should be able to understand it. But you are no engineer and don't even know what it means to measure the frequency of a received monochromatic em-signal. So you are unable to understand FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. Sorry for overestimating you. >> >> FIG.3. shows the predicted and the result of the experiment. >> Note that the 'residuals' is the difference between the predicted and >> measured values. Note that the residual at the turning point of the >> rocket is |Δf/f| < 1e-13 while the predicted value is Δf/f = 4.3e-10. >> >> The blue shift at the turning point of the rocket is measured to be Δf/f >> = 4.3e-10. > > At the turning point the rocket and ground are MAR. The wave arrival rate > must equal the wave emission rate. There can be no frequency shift at that > point. Thanks for yet again confirming that you don't understand that since gravitational blue shift is observed to exist, it is irrational to claim that gravitational blue shift doesn't exist. This is getting too stupid. Enough now. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d38504a5af6118$5921$2081509$4266dc33@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673030 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 20:53:39 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 05.09.2026 00:11, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 21:33:49 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 02.09.2026 19:29, skrev HenryWilson: > > DON'T SNIP THE ATTRIBUTION LINES! They were irelevant and slow everything down >>>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:58:10 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf >>>> >>>> all measurements and estimates of the rocket's position were based on >>>> constant light speed. >>> >>> You are plane wrong. >>> Only frequencies were measured in the experiment. >> >> Frequencies of what? > > Why do you pretend to be an idiot? It is an important question.Are you not aware that every frequency counter detects WAR. I want to know which signal's WAR are you referring to. Iirc Radar was used to calculate its position and speed. >> Wave arrival rates? > > Do you mean that when a receiver receives a monochromatic em-wave then > it is receiving several waves at the wave arrival rate? That's a badly worded question. It is continuously receiving waves at a WAR that is possibly varying > You are not pretending! No I really AM smarter than you. > > >>> A signal was sent to the rocket, and was reflected (by a transponder) >>> and sent back to the ground. The Doppler shift was measured, and this >>> Doppler shift is only caused by the motion of the rocket because any >>> gravitational effect will cancel in the two way measurement. >> >> It wouldn't. 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) does not equal 1/c, a common mistake >> made by amateurs. > > So any gravitational effect will not cancel in the two way measurement > because 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) does not equal 1/c? > > :-D > > It does not equal 2/c then....a common mistake made by amateurs It equals 2c/(c^2-v^2) or approx. >>> A signal from a H-maser was sent from the rocket to the ground. >> >> At c or c+v? >> >>> Half of the above two way Doppler shift was subtracted from this >>> signal. The difference is then the gravitational blue shift. >>> >>> See FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. >>> If you really are an engineer, you should be able to understand it. > > But you are no engineer and don't even know what it means to measure the > frequency of a received monochromatic em-signal. Androcles was an engineer.Your memory is fading. As any physicist knows, the WAR of the received signal Will depend on the signals wavelength and speed. If that speed is assumed to be constant c, estimates of the rocket's position and speed will be wrong. and the experiment will naturally favour the constant c model...faked!. > So you are unable to understand FIG.1 in Vessot's paper. It uses constant c. It should use c+v everywhere, where v is constantly changing. So naturally it will favour the constant c model. > Sorry for overestimating you. > > >>> FIG.3. shows the predicted and the result of the experiment. >>> Note that the 'residuals' is the difference between the predicted and >>> measured values. Note that the residual at the turning point of the >>> rocket is |Δf/f| < 1e-13 while the predicted value is Δf/f = 4.3e-10. >>> >>> The blue shift at the turning point of the rocket is measured to be >>> Δf/f = 4.3e-10. >> >> At the turning point the rocket and ground are MAR. The wave arrival >> rate must equal the wave emission rate. There can be no frequency shift >> at that point. > > Thanks for yet again confirming that you don't understand that since > gravitational blue shift is observed to exist, > it is irrational to claim that gravitational blue shift doesn't exist. f a blue shift was observed, it was not caused by gravity > > This is getting too stupid. > Enough now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11764ae$1l9jj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672610 |
On 31/08/2026 21:44, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Just direct measurement, As in the "direct measurement" of a speed. The more you think you must be right, the more you just spout fallacious mainstream nonsense. -Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0s1yo.kxmupd177t1i9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672624 |
Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote: > On 31/08/2026 21:44, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Just direct measurement, > > As in the "direct measurement" of a speed. > > The more you think you must be right, the more > you just spout fallacious mainstream nonsense. As it happens, I do have two clocks standing side by side. As it also happens, I know which one runs fast and which one runs slow. By direct comparison of course, Jan (nice to hear them ticking)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web