Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 275 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <6AC7324E.666@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674232 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > HenryWilson wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: > >> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll > >> give it to you. > >> > >> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then > >> > >> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi > >> > >> gives > >> > >> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) > >> > >> and therefore, to first order, > >> > >> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. > >> > >> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the > >> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency > >> shift. > > > > It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in > > different ways and with different interpretations... > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > situations. > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > explained to you). > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. But the TRUTH is Newton is taught more than Einstein in schools. Newton last longer. Newton deals with a Universal Clock, while Einstein deals with choo choo train clocks and cuckoo clocks. If you had to remove one from school it would be Einstein. photoelectric what is dat? GR is Newton's GRavity that Einstein stole from....wat a goniff. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <6AC7D3C3.46F9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674261 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > HenryWilson wrote: > > > On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: > > >> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll > > >> give it to you. > > >> > > >> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then > > >> > > >> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi > > >> > > >> gives > > >> > > >> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) > > >> > > >> and therefore, to first order, > > >> > > >> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. > > >> > > >> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the > > >> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency > > >> shift. > > > > > > It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in > > > different ways and with different interpretations... > > > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > > situations. > > > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > > explained to you). > > > > -- > > PointedEars > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > But the TRUTH is Newton is taught more than Einstein in schools. > > Newton last longer. > > Newton deals with a Universal Clock, while Einstein deals with choo choo > train clocks and cuckoo clocks. > > If you had to remove one from school it would be Einstein. > > photoelectric what is dat? > > GR is Newton's GRavity that Einstein stole from....wat a goniff. > Now, I knows yous people have lost touch with the real world... but, you know, or don't know... when they teach rravity and motion in high school.. they always refer to Newton's Laws, not Einstein's theories. They don't teach Jewish science in high school! If I want a bagel with creame cheese i go to a Jewish bakery deli... if I want real science, ...there is only the guy who got hit with an apple on his head. Besides, where are you going to find a gym teacher that teaches Einstein Relativity???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <6AC7D70D.16B0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674261 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > HenryWilson wrote: > > > On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: > > >> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll > > >> give it to you. > > >> > > >> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then > > >> > > >> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi > > >> > > >> gives > > >> > > >> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) > > >> > > >> and therefore, to first order, > > >> > > >> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. > > >> > > >> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the > > >> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency > > >> shift. > > > > > > It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in > > > different ways and with different interpretations... > > > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > > situations. > > > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > > explained to you). > > > > -- > > PointedEars > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > But the TRUTH is Newton is taught more than Einstein in schools. > > Newton last longer. > > Newton deals with a Universal Clock, while Einstein deals with choo choo > train clocks and cuckoo clocks. > > If you had to remove one from school it would be Einstein. > > photoelectric what is dat? > The Truth is dat THEY don't want you know is albert einstein got the nobel prize for the atomic bomb... but it's disguised as...photoelectric. yous people are soooooo naive. you see only wat you want to see.. Look at the pattern both 1905 both same process. duh bunch of bimbos here! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <6AC82898.3C9B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674273 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > HenryWilson wrote: > > > > On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: > > > >> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll > > > >> give it to you. > > > >> > > > >> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, then > > > >> > > > >> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi > > > >> > > > >> gives > > > >> > > > >> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) > > > >> > > > >> and therefore, to first order, > > > >> > > > >> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. > > > >> > > > >> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately the > > > >> same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational frequency > > > >> shift. > > > > > > > > It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but in > > > > different ways and with different interpretations... > > > > > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > > > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > > > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > > > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > > > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > > > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > > > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > > > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > > > situations. > > > > > > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > > > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > > > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > > > explained to you). > > > > > > -- > > > PointedEars > > > > > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > > > > But the TRUTH is Newton is taught more than Einstein in schools. > > > > Newton last longer. > > > > Newton deals with a Universal Clock, while Einstein deals with choo choo > > train clocks and cuckoo clocks. > > > > If you had to remove one from school it would be Einstein. > > > > photoelectric what is dat? > > > > The Truth is dat THEY don't want you know is > albert einstein got the nobel prize for the atomic bomb... > but it's disguised as...photoelectric. > > yous people are soooooo naive. > > you see only wat you want to see.. > > Look at the pattern > > both 1905 > > both same process. > > duh > > bunch of bimbos here! > keep in mind in 1905 Einstein didn't know of galaxies -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <18dcd52bb2eba35e$1$1748$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674232 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:18:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>> There is actually one interesting point in your calculation, and I'll >>> give it to you. >>> >>> If you treat light as a Newtonian corpuscle initially moving at c, >>> then >>> >>> 1/2 m v_f^2 = 1/2 m c^2 + Delta_Phi >>> >>> gives >>> >>> v_f = sqrt(c^2 + 2 Delta_Phi) >>> >>> and therefore, to first order, >>> >>> Delta_v/c ~= Delta_Phi/c^2 ~= 5.3e-10. >>> >>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately >>> the same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational >>> frequency shift. >> >> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but >> in different ways and with different interpretations... > > And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice > as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight > passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 > (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). That (and their failure to explain > the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous > precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we > /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, > and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special > situations. Eddington's result was a joke...and Mercury's precession has no fixed value. It isn't hard to end up with an incorrect factor of 2 in scientific calculations even when you use a calculator. Even Einstein omitted it originally. > Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as > it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that > Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been > explained to you). A gravity wave could easily move at c relative to the event that caused it. That's perfectly in accord with Newton. But if gravity takes time to act, as you appear to be proposing, that alone would affect Mercury's precession considerably. It would also suggest that electrostatic force takes time to act.which would be an interesting thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <11aai9v$1semn$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674299 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:18:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately >>>> the same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational >>>> frequency shift. >>> >>> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but >>> in different ways and with different interpretations... >> >> And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice >> as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight >> passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 >> (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). > > That (and their failure to explain >> the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous >> precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we >> /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, >> and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special >> situations. > > Eddington's result was a joke... It was not. And his observations have been confirmed with greater precision by newer observations multiple times. > and Mercury's precession has no fixed value. You are not making sense. Precession is an effect, not a quantity. > It isn't hard to end up with an incorrect factor of 2 in scientific > calculations even when you use a calculator. False. >> Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as >> it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that >> Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been >> explained to you). > > A gravity wave We are neither talking about gravity waves nor gravitational waves. > could easily move at c relative to the event that caused it. It could not. > That's perfectly in accord with Newton. We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously at a distance. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <GUadnTOAIZKrclX3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674302 |
On 10/09/2026 04:14 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:18:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>>>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately >>>>> the same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational >>>>> frequency shift. >>>> >>>> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number but >>>> in different ways and with different interpretations... >>> >>> And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % (twice >>> as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of starlight >>> passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed first in 1919 >>> (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). >> >> That (and their failure to explain >>> the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous >>> precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we >>> /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ wrong, >>> and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special >>> situations. >> >> Eddington's result was a joke... > > It was not. And his observations have been confirmed with greater > precision by newer observations multiple times. > >> and Mercury's precession has no fixed value. > > You are not making sense. Precession is an effect, not a quantity. > >> It isn't hard to end up with an incorrect factor of 2 in scientific >> calculations even when you use a calculator. > > False. > >>> Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as >>> it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that >>> Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already been >>> explained to you). >> >> A gravity wave > > We are neither talking about gravity waves nor gravitational waves. > >> could easily move at c relative to the event that caused it. > > It could not. > >> That's perfectly in accord with Newton. > > We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of > gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory > gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously > at a distance. > That the solar system doesn't fly apart falsifies the theory that gravity's "speed" is less than infinite, since it only holds up that gravity points at the source, not the image. Yeah, I've heard about that in theories where nothing goes faster than light and light's speed is finite that c_g <= c, point being that they're falsified by observation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de0fd05cbf6126$1001$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674302 |
On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:14:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:18:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 04 Oct 26 10:57:38 +0000, Python wrote: >>>>> So yes: your Newtonian construction naturally produces approximately >>>>> the same first-order dimensionless number as the gravitational >>>>> frequency shift. >>>> >>>> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number >>>> but in different ways and with different interpretations... >>> >>> And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % >>> (twice as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of >>> starlight passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed >>> first in 1919 (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). >> >> That (and their failure to explain >>> the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous >>> precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we >>> /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ >>> wrong, >>> and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special >>> situations. >> >> Eddington's result was a joke... > > It was not. And his observations have been confirmed with greater > precision by newer observations multiple times. He only managed to get one photo. >> and Mercury's precession has no fixed value. > > You are not making sense. Precession is an effect, not a quantity. The RATE OF precession was the issue. Th argument was over its quantity. why don't you learn something about your own stupid theory? >> It isn't hard to end up with an incorrect factor of 2 in scientific >> calculations even when you use a calculator. > > False. How would you know . You have never made one. >>> Also, an infinite speed of the propagation of gravitational effects as >>> it follows from Newton's theory of gravitation (a consequence that >>> Newton himself was bothered by) violates causality (as has already >>> been explained to you). >> >> A gravity wave > > We are neither talking about gravity waves nor gravitational waves. > >> could easily move at c relative to the event that caused it. > > It could not. > >> That's perfectly in accord with Newton. > > We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of > gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory > gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously > at a distance. Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance..I cannot see any 'curved spacetiime' explaining that...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <xxJCoJyjTw6tX2Lg9FwmCjoubFo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674374 |
Le 13/10/2026 à 12:24, HenryWilson a écrit :
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:14:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
..
>> We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of
>> gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory
>> gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously
>> at a distance.
>
> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance..I
> cannot see any 'curved spacetiime' explaining that...
There is a rather important physical difference between your two examples.
> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance..
No. Gravity has a property that electromagnetism does not have: locally,
a gravitational field can be made to disappear by choosing a freely
falling reference frame.
Put yourself in a sealed laboratory falling freely toward the Earth.
Neglecting tidal effects, release a ball. It does not accelerate toward
the floor. It floats beside you.
Locally, you have transformed away gravity.
That is not merely a convenient mathematical description. An
accelerometer attached to the laboratory reads zero. You are following
a geodesic.
Now put two magnets in the same freely falling laboratory.
They still attract or repel each other.
No change of reference frame can make the electromagnetic interaction
disappear in the corresponding way. You can transform electric fields
partly into magnetic fields and vice versa, but if the electromagnetic
field tensor F_mu_nu is nonzero, no coordinate transformation makes the
physical field tensor zero.
This is precisely the observation behind Einstein's equivalence
principle.
There is another beautiful way to see the distinction.
Stand on the ground holding an accelerometer:
accelerometer != 0.
Fall freely:
accelerometer = 0.
In GR, the surprising statement is that the falling observer is the
INERTIAL one. The person standing "motionless" on Earth is continuously
being accelerated upward away from a geodesic by the electromagnetic
forces in the ground.
So when a magnet sitting on your table attracts another magnet, you
cannot say:
"that's just like gravity."
Quite the opposite.
The table is preventing both magnets from following their gravitational
free-fall trajectories by electromagnetic forces, while their magnetic
interaction remains perfectly present.
There is one qualification: gravity cannot be transformed away over an
extended region when the field is nonuniform. Two freely falling
particles can converge or diverge. Those are tidal effects, represented
in GR by spacetime curvature (the Riemann tensor).
So the distinction is:
uniform gravity locally -> removable by free fall
gravitational tidal effects -> not removable; curvature
electromagnetic field -> not removable by choosing free fall
And that is why "I cannot see curved spacetime explaining magnets" is
not much of an objection.
GR does not claim that curved spacetime explains magnets.
It explains why gravity is fundamentally unlike magnets in exactly the
respect your example overlooks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de23d7c3a34340$179647$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674375 |
On 10/13/2026 4:36 PM, Python wrote: > Le 13/10/2026 à 12:24, HenryWilson a écrit : >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:14:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > .. >>> We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of >>> gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory >>> gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously >>> at a distance. >> >> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a >> distance..I cannot see any 'curved spacetiime' explaining that... > > There is a rather important physical difference between your two examples. > >> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance.. > > No. Gravity has a property that electromagnetism does not have: locally, > a gravitational field can be made to disappear by choosing a freely > falling reference frame. > > Put yourself in a sealed laboratory falling freely toward the Earth. > Neglecting tidal effects, release a ball. It does not accelerate toward > the floor. It floats beside you. > > Locally, you have transformed away gravity. > > That is not merely a convenient mathematical description. An > accelerometer attached to the laboratory reads zero. And a pendulum clocks stands still. The time stops flowing, no doubts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de2839bae32da6$1018$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674375 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 26 14:36:22 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 13/10/2026 à 12:24, HenryWilson a écrit : >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:14:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > .. >>> We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of >>> gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory >>> gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously >>> at a distance. >> >> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a >> distance..I cannot see any 'curved spacetiime' explaining that... > > There is a rather important physical difference between your two > examples. Yes. Mine shows that forces can exist without associated accelerations. Some unknown and very powerful mechanism is pushing the two magnets together. There is so much more to learn. >> Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance.. > > No. Gravity has a property that electromagnetism does not have: locally, > a gravitational field can be made to disappear by choosing a freely > falling reference frame. No...its continued action on the falling object is directly observable through a distant telescope. > Put yourself in a sealed laboratory falling freely toward the Earth. > Neglecting tidal effects, release a ball. It does not accelerate toward > the floor. It floats beside you. All its unit masses are accelerating just like mine are. > Locally, you have transformed away gravity. Yes that a nice way to put it... My body is in its natural state. It has been freed of the two opposing forces that push my feet towards my head when I am standing up. > That is not merely a convenient mathematical description. An > accelerometer attached to the laboratory reads zero. You are following a > geodesic. You are of course thinking of the simple spring accelerometer. Naturally they don't work in free fall for obvious reasons..but a radar accelerometer will still tell you you are accelerating towards the centgre of mass. > > Now put two magnets in the same freely falling laboratory. > > They still attract or repel each other. The forces involved are not affected by spatial movement. > No change of reference frame can make the electromagnetic interaction > disappear in the corresponding way. You can transform electric fields > partly into magnetic fields and vice versa, but if the electromagnetic > field tensor F_mu_nu is nonzero, no coordinate transformation makes the > physical field tensor zero. Well, that's a complicated way of stating what I just wrote. Fields obviously involve dimensions that humans know nothing about. Our sensory system is sensitive only to space, time and things like colour and thought. We cannot even imagine how other dimensions might appear or interact with the ones we know. > This is precisely the observation behind Einstein's equivalence > principle. ....and he got it all wrong. > There is another beautiful way to see the distinction. > > Stand on the ground holding an accelerometer: > > accelerometer != 0. > > Fall freely: > > accelerometer = 0. Gawd! Can't you se the flaw in that old argument... > In GR, the surprising statement is that the falling observer is the > INERTIAL one. The person standing "motionless" on Earth is continuously > being accelerated upward away from a geodesic by the electromagnetic > forces in the ground. So you subscribe to the 'expanding Earth theory, eh! That's why we don't fall off. > So when a magnet sitting on your table attracts another magnet, you > cannot say: > > "that's just like gravity." > > Quite the opposite. > > The table is preventing both magnets from following their gravitational > free-fall trajectories by electromagnetic forces, while their magnetic > interaction remains perfectly present. The two types of force are obviously 'orthogonal'. They involves different dimensions. > > There is one qualification: gravity cannot be transformed away over an > extended region when the field is nonuniform. Two freely falling > particles can converge or diverge. Those are tidal effects, represented > in GR by spacetime curvature (the Riemann tensor). Look! If you want to make life hard for yourself, you can go along with all the rigmarole associated with Minkowski's and Einstein's silly constant c spacetime. None of the pedantic nonsense you are sprouting is necessary even though it can produce the occasional right answer. I prefer to remain in the real world with good old Newton, who is always right and much simpler. > So the distinction is: > > uniform gravity locally -> removable by free fall gravitational > tidal effects -> not removable; curvature electromagnetic field > -> not removable by choosing free fall > > And that is why "I cannot see curved spacetime explaining magnets" is > not much of an objection. > > GR does not claim that curved spacetime explains magnets. GR does not explain any aspect of reality. It is based on several myths. > It explains why gravity is fundamentally unlike magnets in exactly the > respect your example overlooks. It does not 'EXPLAIN WHY' or anything else. It just redescribes the whole issue in such a confusingly complicated way that some people are enticed into believing that it does. I am not ashamed to stick my neck out and proclaim that much of modern Physics is just unnecessary academic bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <apaNmzovoTKvgveuwa3IYEV-fO8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674392 |
Ralph, > I prefer to remain in the real world with good old Newton, who is always > right and much simpler. The problem is that every time we ask your "much simpler" physics to calculate something, it stops being physics and becomes prose. GPS clock shift? "Gravitational self compression." Magnetism? "Some unknown and very powerful mechanism." Fields? "Dimensions that humans know nothing about." Free fall? The accelerometer doesn't count because you prefer the radar. And when an actual theory gives quantitative predictions, it becomes "academic bullshit". Newton deserves considerably better advocates. Physics consists in constructing models that make quantitative, falsifiable predictions. "There must be some unknown mechanism in some unknown dimension" is not simpler physics. It isn't physics yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de2939b0b3ff15$179649$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674393 |
On 10/13/2026 7:58 PM, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> I prefer to remain in the real world with good old Newton, who is always >> right and much simpler. > > The problem is that every time we ask your "much simpler" physics to > calculate something, it stops being physics and becomes prose. And physics should be poetry, sure. Like those perfect clocks - maybe unusable, but perfectly measuring the thing they measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <iJCsHbWuCyaGmTxBhqPZ7iSbB2A@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674395 |
Your problem with those allegedly "poetic" ideal clocks is that they
produce numbers.
Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately:
+45 us/day gravitational
-7 us/day kinematic
------------------------
+38 us/day net
And GPS engineering compensates for that predicted rate difference.
Your magnificent alternative is:
t' = t
and, when clocks disagree:
"one must be wrong."
By how much, Maciej?
Calculate the 38 us/day.
Relativity gives a number before the correction is applied.
You give a slogan after seeing that a correction was necessary.
That's the difference between a physical theory and Usenet commentary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de3426a07a211d$201762$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674403 |
On 10/13/2026 11:05 PM, Python wrote: > Your problem with those allegedly "poetic" ideal clocks is that they > produce numbers. No, poor piece of shit, my problem with those poetic ideal clocks is that the assertion they are ideal is as baseless as it is idiotic. Some insane idiot has impressively waved his arms - and other idiots, like yourself, have bought it. > > Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately: > > +45 us/day gravitational > -7 us/day kinematic > ------------------------ > +38 us/day net Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy, i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <11ama3l$1smj0$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #674405 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately: >> >> +45 us/day gravitational >> -7 us/day kinematic >> ------------------------ +38 us/day net > > Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy, > i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because > those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing > clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic. it's the same thing, idiot, you desynchronize because the effect takes place, otherwise there would be no reason to desynchronize. Use your brain from time to time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <6ACEB256.3059@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674407 |
Randell Frukalov wrote: > > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > >> Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately: > >> > >>   +45 us/day gravitational > >>    -7 us/day kinematic > >>   ------------------------ +38 us/day net > > > > Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy, > > i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because > > those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing > > clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic. > > it's the same thing, idiot, you desynchronize because the effect takes > place, otherwise there would be no reason to desynchronize. Use your brain > from time to time time to time???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <LZVF2cKaj1WWeoCGWcv5qTnLwGc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674407 |
Le 14/10/2026 à 00:07, Randell Frukalov a écrit :
> Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>>> Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately:
>>>
>>> +45 us/day gravitational
>>> -7 us/day kinematic
>>> ------------------------ +38 us/day net
>>
>> Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy,
>> i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because
>> those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing
>> clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic.
>
> it's the same thing, idiot, you desynchronize because the effect takes
> place, otherwise there would be no reason to desynchronize. Use your brain
> from time to time
Maciej,
> the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen
Yes, Maciej. Because GPS COMPENSATES FOR IT.
This is becoming magnificent:
Relativity predicts: +38 us/day
Engineers compensate: -38 us/day
Operational residual: ~0
And you stare at the zero and announce:
"See? The 38 doesn't happen!"
We've been through this repeatedly.
If relativity were wrong and your
t' = t
were right, applying the relativistic frequency offset would CREATE a
drift of roughly 38 us/day.
It doesn't.
So forget "ideal", "perfect", Einstein and all the arm-waving.
Give us YOUR quantitative prediction:
GPS satellite versus ground clock: _____ us/day
before compensation.
Relativity fills in the blank.
You still can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18de6c03a5ba2e40$7050$1958670$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674412 |
On 10/14/2026 12:44 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/10/2026 à 00:07, Randell Frukalov a écrit : >> Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >>>> Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately: >>>> >>>> +45 us/day gravitational >>>> -7 us/day kinematic >>>> ------------------------ +38 us/day net >>> >>> Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy, >>> i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because >>> those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing >>> clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic. >> >> it's the same thing, idiot, you desynchronize because the effect takes >> place, otherwise there would be no reason to desynchronize. Use your >> brain from time to time > > Maciej, > >> the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen > > Yes, Maciej. Because GPS COMPENSATES FOR IT. 1)explaining the reason why the mad prophecies of the idiot fail - doesn't change the fact that they fail 2)common sense has been warning the idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <LVgD_OXMY9FBU9vfyzoe2io72yw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674416 |
Le 14/10/2026 à 16:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/14/2026 12:44 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/10/2026 à 00:07, Randell Frukalov a écrit :
>>> Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Relativity predicts for GPS, approximately:
>>>>>
>>>>> +45 us/day gravitational
>>>>> -7 us/day kinematic
>>>>> ------------------------ +38 us/day net
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately - it predicts these numbers as its "time dilation" idiocy,
>>>> i.e. the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen, because
>>>> those mad assertions that it would be perfect with desynchronizing
>>>> clocks are as baseless as they are idiotic.
>>>
>>> it's the same thing, idiot, you desynchronize because the effect takes
>>> place, otherwise there would be no reason to desynchronize. Use your
>>> brain from time to time
>>
>> Maciej,
>>
>>> the difference in clock indications - which doesn't happen
>>
>> Yes, Maciej. Because GPS COMPENSATES FOR IT.
>
> 1)explaining the reason why the mad prophecies
> of the idiot fail - doesn't change the fact
> that they fail
> 2)common sense has been warning the idiot
Maciej,
> explaining the reason why the mad prophecies
> of the idiot fail
No. Applying a predicted correction is not a failed prediction.
Prediction:
without compensation: +38 us/day
Intervention:
apply approximately -38 us/day
Result:
approximately 0
Your argument is literally:
predicted X
subtract X
observe 0
therefore X was never there.
Subtraction followed by amnesia.
And "common sense" still hasn't supplied the number.
Relativity did:
+38 us/day.
So, once again, from your t'=t and common sense:
calculate the required GPS correction.
Not an insult. Not a slogan.
A number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web