Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:37 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:47 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:32 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:15 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 15:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 11:36 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 18:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 03:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:01 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 00:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 20:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 04:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 12:23 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:38 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:22 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:36 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:47 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 21:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:31 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:11 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:28 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:06 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:47 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 19:23 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-18 20:05 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:14 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:48 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 01:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:34 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:48 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:24 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 08:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 15:52 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-26 14:55 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-26 07:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 05:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-28 09:13 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 20:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-28 12:01 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:01 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 12:03 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-29 14:05 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 14:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-28 15:55 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:07 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 11:24 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-30 20:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:49 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-31 07:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-31 20:08 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:05 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 19:12 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:19 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:24 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 13:29 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-21 01:45 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 20:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:59 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 03:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:01 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:46 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 21:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:56 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 08:03 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:21 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 22:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 05:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 17:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:26 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 01:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 19:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 05:28 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:00 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 03:27 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nckddl$h6l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379533 |
On 3/19/2016 11:38 AM, HGW wrote: > On 19/03/16 07:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> >>> Where are the figures, Bodkin? Do they only exist in the >>> dingleberry mind? >> >> As I said, the reference has been posted to you. What do you need? A >> copy-paste of the contents into a post? > > The figures don't exists except in gthe dingleberry mind. The reference has been given to you. On what basis do you say it doesn't exist? Do you need to have it copy-pasted here for you? > >>>>> Bodkin, you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should >>>>> precess at all. That should be easy for an expert like you. >>>>> When are you going to do that? >>> >>> ...no answer from the expert... >> >> You are profoundly lazy. 1. Quadrupole moment of the sun 2. >> Sun-planet tidal forces 3. Perturbations from other planets 4. >> General relativity > > I think the article you copied missed a couple, including a most > important one. Which one did you have in mind? >...and a maths theory does not produce physical effects. The items above are physical causes. > Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory. Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a percent variation from orbit to orbit. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nckpmh$1310$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379556 |
On 20/03/16 07:39, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Which one did you have in mind? > >> ...and a maths theory does not produce physical effects. > > The items above are physical causes. > >> Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory. > > Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a > percent variation from orbit to orbit. Do you mean an average of half a percent over 175 years? You cannot produce the actual figures for each orbit can you? I would like to see them..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncmppg$r7u$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379568 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >On 20/03/16 07:39, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a >> percent variation from orbit to orbit. >Do you mean an average of half a percent over 175 years? You cannot >produce the actual figures for each orbit can you? I would like to see >them.. Ralph, you have already been given a source. You also have an offer to get and scan in the source, a rather rare book. If you were really serious about your claim "I would like to see them.." you would fork over the $250 US and actually get to see them. Paypal is perfectly safe if you trust the owner of an email address. (I can hear your response now: "I don't trust Einsteinian dingleberries!") Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know what to do with the data even if you did have it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncmuhb$7dp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379619 |
On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@...> writes: > > Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd > rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too > chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know what to do with > the data even if you did have it. Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. The hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list of fraudulent claims intended to promote the name Einstein as the world symbol of genius. All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is completely wrong anyway....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FaSdnayrLeIwlXLLnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379624 |
On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote: > Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. Wrong again, Ralph. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncn41n$ion$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379631 |
On 21/03/16 07:31, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote: >> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. > > > Wrong again, Henry. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the > correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit. GR predicted what Einstein thought was a constant value for precession. Its mean value over the next 175 years could be quite different from that of the last 175.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FaSdnamrLeIKhXLLnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379637 |
On 3/20/16 4:17 PM, HGW wrote: > On 21/03/16 07:31, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 3/20/16 2:43 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. >> >> >> Wrong again, Henry. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the >> correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit. > > GR predicted what Einstein thought was a constant value for precession. > > Its mean value over the next 175 years could be quite different from > that of the last 175. > You should have learn in school that, as seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century. This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct. Ref: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html Perihelion Precession of Mercury, full Calculation > http://worlov.narod.ru/merkury-perihelion.pdf Mercury’s Perihelion > http://www.math.toronto.edu/%7ecolliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf Homework assignment for Ralph: Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion > http://homework.sdmesa.edu/cmona/197/mp197files/197.09.mercury%20perihelion.pdf -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncn4l6$5dq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379631 |
Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:FaSdnayrLeIwlXLLnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com... | Wrong again, Ralph. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the | correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Sure, 50 years after. A truly great prophecy of truly great guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncn3mm$40l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379624 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@...> writes: >> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd >> rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too >> chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know what to do with >> the data even if you did have it. >Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers confounded. Explain that, Ralph. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos", explain it in Newtonian mechanics. You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that $250.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncn47n$j6m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379636 |
On 21/03/16 08:11, Michael Moron-y wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > >> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. > > Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers > confounded. It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed. > Explain that, Henry. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos", > explain it in Newtonian mechanics. > > You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that > $250. I don't need to. The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...and there are plenty of other reasons why Einstein's relativity is pure nonsense from start to finish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FaSdnairLeKyhHLLnZ2dnUU7-RcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379638 |
On 3/20/16 4:20 PM, HGW wrote: > It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed. Try not to be so stooopid, Ralph. Einstein did not believe 43 seconds of arc per orbit. Like I said, try not to be so stooopid. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncnhvb$1gq0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379641 |
On 21/03/16 08:42, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/20/16 4:20 PM, HGW wrote: >> It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed. > > > Try not to be so stooopid, Henry. Einstein did not believe 43 seconds > of arc per orbit. Like I said, try not to be so stooopid. Of course he did.....then he whacked a 2 in his equations to make it fit...Nobody knew the difference.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-rydnWO-qr2hmG3LnZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379650 |
On 3/20/16 8:15 PM, HGW wrote: > Of course he did.....then he whacked a 2 in his equations to make it > fit...Nobody knew the difference..... Ralph, you should read the historical literature concerning that factor of two to give it context. You are a bad at Pentcho when taking stuff out of context. :-o -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncnd2i$hj8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379638 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >On 21/03/16 08:11, Michael Moron-y wrote: >> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. >> >> Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers >> confounded. >It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed. Einstein never believed that, Ralph. It was well known at the time the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century. >> Explain that, Henry. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! I told you not to edit my quotes, Ralph. Do I have to punish you now? >> explain it in Newtonian mechanics. >> >> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that >> $250. >I don't need to. Nope. You don't need to. You'll instead choose to bury your head in the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is wrong!!" and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But nobody is going to force you to put up and support your claim rather than raving. Just think, Ralph. You could be just $250 from proving Einstein wrong! Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness? >The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable... It's not "obvious", Ralph, until we see the data. Why won't you spring for it? Of course, you have no idea what to do with the data even if you did have it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncr631$13se$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379645 |
On 21/03/16 10:51, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@...> writes: > > Einstein never believed that, Henry. It was well known at the time > the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century. > >>> Explain that, Henry. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's >>> chaos", > > Henry George Wilson! I told you not to edit my quotes, Henry. Do I > have to punish you now? > >>> explain it in Newtonian mechanics. >>> >>> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire >>> off that $250. > >> I don't need to. > > Nope. You don't need to. You'll instead choose to bury your head in > the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is > wrong!!" and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But > nobody is going to force you to put up and support your claim rather > than raving. > > Just think, Henry. You could be just $250 from proving Einstein > wrong! Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness? I have already proved Einstein wrong and it cost me nothing. >> The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable... > > It's not "obvious", Henry, until we see the data. It is obvious to anyone except an indoctrinated dingleberry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nct7ua$db5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379810 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 21/03/16 10:51, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@...> writes: >> >> Einstein never believed that, Henry. It was well known at the time >> the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century. >> >>>> Explain that, Henry. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's >>>> chaos", >> >> Henry George Wilson! I told you not to edit my quotes, Henry. Do I >> have to punish you now? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! Ralph, you are really, really stupid, aren't you, Ralph! Mr. Rabbidge, I explained to you long ago, Ralph Rabbidge, not to muck with my posts, Ralph, and not to change what I wrote, Mr. Rabbidge. You did know, Ralph, what I would do since you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) messed with my quotes in the very post where I warned you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not to do so, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, I know that you have some weird hangup, Ralph, about people using your real name, Ralph, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not Henry George Wilson, nor is it Henry M. Wilson which is the name you used on your forged photoshopped diploma, Ralph. So Ralph, if you don't like people using your name (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge), why do you like to provoke me into making posts like this, Ralph? Ralph, are you really that stooopid, Ralph? Or are you sadistic, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge? >>>> explain it in Newtonian mechanics. >>>> >>>> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire >>>> off that $250. >> >>> I don't need to. >> >> Nope. You don't need to. You'll instead choose to bury your head in >> the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is >> wrong!!" and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But >> nobody is going to force you to put up and support your claim rather >> than raving. >> >> Just think, Henry. You could be just $250 from proving Einstein >> wrong! Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness? >I have already proved Einstein wrong and it cost me nothing. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you have never proved Einstein wrong, Ralph. Doing so, Ralph, remains a fantasy in your little mind, Ralph. Ralph, you and I both know that you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, are simply too scared to get the data, Mr. Rabbidge, since you *know*, Ralph, that it supports Einstein, Ralph. Well, it would, Ralph, if you had the slightest clue, Ralph, what to do with the data, Ralph. Ralph, as you just proved, Ralph, you simply aren't very smart, Ralph. >>> The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable... >> It's not "obvious", Henry, until we see the data. >It is obvious to anyone except an indoctrinated dingleberry Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it's not obvious at all, Ralph, if there is no data available, Ralph, to show it either way, Ralph. Oh, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, don't you think that being able to define a key in an editor to insert text "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" and another key as simply "Ralph", as a really cool invention, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge? Now Ralph, don't make me wear out my "Ralph" key, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nctmjv$uu2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379905 |
On 23/03/2016 4:00 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: ...a lot of incomprehensible garbage. I suspect he was drunk at the time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncu6cj$o38$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379908 |
HGW <hgw@...> writes: >On 23/03/2016 4:00 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >...a lot of incomprehensible garbage. >I suspect he was drunk at the time Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I am hoping that you learned your lesson and you accept your punishment, Ralph. Did you, Ralph? Ralph, somehow I doubt it, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, I had a bit of fun writing that, and Ralph M., perhaps a few others who are already amused by your name hangup may have enjoyed it as well, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncv329$1m1m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379919 |
On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted: ..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd102k$pul$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379982 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted: >..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute. Ralph, why won't you get the Mercury data to show us how "it's obvious" its orbit is Newtonian? You keep whining "it's obvious", but without any data it can't be obvious. For a mere $250 investment, you can prove GR wrong. That will surely produce a Nobel Prize in Physics in the name of Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, Wouldn't you like Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge to be listed right next to Newton and Galileo as one of the greats of science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web