Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 22:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-02 05:58 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 07:10 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 04:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:00 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 21:31 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 21:20 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 05:30 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-04 06:14 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 17:07 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 22:32 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 20:51 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 16:39 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 05:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 08:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-05 21:44 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-06 22:31 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-07 02:36 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 01:55 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 19:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-07 17:00 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 23:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 06:13 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 11:32 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:06 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 19:11 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-11 19:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-08 17:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 20:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 13:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-09 08:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 05:52 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:55 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 04:41 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 05:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:06 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-14 19:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:21 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:46 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 07:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 08:38 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-15 14:13 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-15 21:23 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:26 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-17 07:35 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:20 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 06:49 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 05:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 22:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-18 14:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 15:34 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 05:21 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 20:56 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 20:56 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 12:14 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 13:40 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 05:07 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 21:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-20 07:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 01:26 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 13:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-21 05:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-20 23:38 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 04:19 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 20:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 08:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 04:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 04:36 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-26 04:42 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 03:49 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 01:43 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 20:27 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 04:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-28 05:07 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 04:29 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 05:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:33 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 14:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-30 07:00 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 06:21 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 05:01 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-02 04:35 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 03:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 03:38 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 07:55 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 23:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 07:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 05:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:18 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-17 10:24 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 11:57 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:30 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-07 05:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 18:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:04 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 06:49 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:32 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:35 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 03:24 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 03:36 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:07 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 04:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 05:39 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:56 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 06:42 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 15:04 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:10 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 09:59 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 12:10 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 14:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:37 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 14:58 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:09 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-10 09:17 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 10:06 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:48 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:08 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:30 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-09 19:45 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 19:18 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:11 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:29 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <029ba986-a17c-49f0-9bea-06635c14701d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367381 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:25:29 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote: > kefischer > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT), fuller...@hotmail.com > wrote: > - hide quoted text - > - hide quoted text - > > >If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. > > > >So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. > > > > > > > >Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, > > > > > >Not If the "m" is equivalent to a quanta of "entropy" or displaced energy > > > > > >If two hydrogen atoms with their electrons fuse > >The radius of the electrons orbit is the displaced energy > > > >When the protons fuse to helium > >It takes the configuration of two black hole of equal size - helium 4. With the displacement of four electrons. > > > >In the stable helium 4, as in two equal black holes, the two event horizon volumes when merged, the volume jumps from 2*X to Not 4*X but to 8*X = two protons needing two neutrons to be stable. > >The more efficient spatial packing of the horizons or less wasted space is converted to double the electric charge > > It looks like somebody is either stoned or off his rocker. > > No..... > Looks about right. > > 2He or 4He) is a non-radioactive isotope of the element helium. It is by far the most abundant of the two naturally occurring isotopes of helium, making up about 99.99986% of the helium on Earth. Its nucleus is identical to an alpha particle, and consists of two protons and two neutrons. > > > You take 4 neutral hydrogen atoms, fuse them > 4 - .511 MeV photons are released and you are left with one very ionized helium-4 atom Pair production * Photon is absorbed giving rise to electron and positron * Occurs in Coulomb force field - usually near atomic nucleus; threshold energy 1.022 MeV * Sometimes occurs in a field of atomic electron (triplet production); threshold energy 2.044 MeV * For 10-MeV photons in soft tissue, for example, about 10% * The ratio of triplet to pair production increases with E of incident photons and decreases with Z https://www.utoledo.edu/med/depts/radther/pdf/JC%20Chapter%206%20handout.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9c072a2-56f3-44b2-abd9-a9d94a17ed55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367342 |
Gravity or "displacement of the vacuum impedance with a vector" or "Time Dilation resulting from acceleration" would cause an equivalent "Off Centering" of the proton in the atoms electron shell. This " Off center proton" in relation to its electron shell would "simulate" a "charge imbalance" on opposing sides of the Atom, that the would re-balance in the vacuum of space time as gravity. Gravity would not exist in the universe until it was cool enough for space to Not be opaque.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2tidnYnUPcZs_r_LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367312 |
On 10/17/15 10/17/15 - 12:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.10.2015 17:26, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> I have assumed, that SRT >>> is wrong. >> But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR >> are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this >> easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY >> DIFFICULT. > > No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are illogic. But it doesn't. You do need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_ before you can understand the logic behind it. Your GUESSES are wrong, and that's where the "illogic" crept in. > Now SRT uses the 'Einstein equivalence principle', which says 'all inertial > observers are of equal rights'. SR does not use Einstein's equivalence principle, that is GR. And what you say is not what that principle says. What you said is a distant cousin to the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same when expressed in any inertial frame. > This I take as allowance to say, that all inertial observers have the velocity > zero. One can always select such coordinates, yes. > But this would violate the previous concept, that SRT is based on the velocity v > of the observers. But that is not really a "concept", and is not at all a requirement. You are VERY CONFUSED about SR. You have no hope of understanding it until you forget your current nonsense and STUDY. > [... further flights into never-never land] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b37db063-3214-4fc2-9749-030365494b4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367362 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 8:06:26 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/17/15, 12:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that > > are illogic. The Lorentz transform, also known as SR, manifests self-contradictory mathematics, and this is a no-no in science. <shrug> > But it doesn't. SR can only dissolve its self-inconsistency if creating new laws of physics that apply in non-inertial frames of reference, and this has nothing to do with SR. It is just a manmade creation in the laws of physics. The idiots who do so are violating the essence of science which says "THOU SHALL NOT CREATE YOUR OWN LAWS OF PHYSICS". <shrug> > [rest of babbling nonsense snipped] Oh, Koobee Wublee is still waiting for Tom to point out where SR says the laws of physics are completely different in non-inertial frames of reference versus inertial ones. Please tell Koobee Wublee if this is too much to ask for science. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 05:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da5e8uF5a7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367362 |
Am 17.10.2015 17:06, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/17/15 10/17/15 - 12:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 16.10.2015 17:26, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>> I have assumed, that SRT >>>> is wrong. >>> But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR >>> are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this >>> easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY >>> DIFFICULT. >> >> No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are >> illogic. > > But it doesn't. You do need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_ before you > can understand the logic behind it. Your GUESSES are wrong, and that's > where the "illogic" crept in. Ok. let me sum up my critique on SRT: I assume, the formula E=m*c² is wrong, because it should say E= - delta m * c². This is so, because the formula describes radioactive decay and the energy of the emitted ray is E, while the lost mast of the sample is delta m. And both have opposite signs (gain equals minus loss). SRT assume the influence of velocity in respect to some sort of 'true' background, without giving a hint, what that should be. SRT uses a completely bogus definition of simultaneity. The effects described (time dilation ...) in SRT do not stem from velocity, but from acceleration. SRT uses mutual relations (clock synchronisation) without a hint, for what purpose. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 05:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7dc82a4f-1e0c-45af-aaf2-a1143d259a94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369268 |
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:50:43 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > let me sum up my critique on SRT: > > I assume, the formula E=m*c² is wrong, because it should say E= - delta > m * c². I am quite confident that this is incorrect. However, one could say that delta_E = delta_m*c^2, or even dE = dm*c^2. > This is so, because the formula describes radioactive decay Not necessarily. It is a very GENERAL relationship. > SRT assume the influence of velocity in respect to some sort of 'true' > background, without giving a hint, what that should be. Incorrect. Velocity is relative to some inertial frame. Usually, that frame is the frame of the observer. > SRT uses a completely bogus definition of simultaneity. What is bogus about using a phenomenon that has invariant speed to determine simultaneity? > The effects described (time dilation ...) in SRT do not stem from > velocity, but from acceleration. Incorrect, as anyone who understands algebra and the Lorentz transform knows full well. > SRT uses mutual relations (clock synchronisation) without a hint, for > what purpose. > > TH Completely false assertion. It's blatantly obvious that physicists use clocks for conducting many, if not most, experiments, so it is of paramount importance that clocks be synchronized. It is also of paramount importance that physicists know when clocks cannot be synchronized. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <16adnc7GbIUjiKPLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369268 |
On 11/6/15 11/6/15 10:50 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > let me sum up my critique on SRT: But your criticisms are NOT of Special Relativity, they are of some mish-mash you have concocted for yourself. > I assume, the formula E=m*c² is wrong, because it should say E= - delta m * c². > This is so, because the formula describes radioactive decay and the energy of > the emitted ray is E, while the lost mast of the sample is delta m. And both > have opposite signs (gain equals minus loss). That formula has MUCH wider applicability than that. And the original formula DOES imply what you said. Except for your sign error (due to applying it inappropriately). > SRT assume the influence of velocity in respect to some sort of 'true' > background, without giving a hint, what that should be. This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There is no "background" in SR. But there is geometry, and the geometry of a manifold naturally provides locally inertial frames relative to which the equations of physics are simpler, and relative to which velocity can be measured and its effects observed/calculated. > SRT uses a completely bogus definition of simultaneity. No. The world we inhabit does not permit the "simultaneity" you WISH WERE POSSIBLE. SR merely reflects the structure of the world we inhabit. > The effects described (time dilation ...) in SRT do not stem from velocity, but > from acceleration. This is JUST PLAIN NOT TRUE. > SRT uses mutual relations (clock synchronisation) without a hint, for what purpose. The "hint" is that "mutual time dilation" (etc.) are required for self-consistency of the theory. When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of basic physics, all you can do is make stupid remarks. Like those above. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 18:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da6rngFgc79U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369306 |
Am 07.11.2015 16:16, schrieb Tom Roberts: > >> I assume, the formula E=m*c² is wrong, because it should say E= - >> delta m * c². >> This is so, because the formula describes radioactive decay and the >> energy of >> the emitted ray is E, while the lost mast of the sample is delta m. >> And both >> have opposite signs (gain equals minus loss). > > That formula has MUCH wider applicability than that. And the original > formula DOES imply what you said. Except for your sign error (due to > applying it inappropriately). I would say, my interpretation is correct. The 'usual' interpretation of E=m*c² is, that mass/matter is some form of energy. I would restrict the term 'energy' to energetic processes and the term 'mass' to inertia. A beam of gamma rays is certainly energetic, while a ball of -say- steel has mass and inertia. I would not use the term energy for steel (for example), because there are other words more appropriate (like: mass). If mass is lost in a process, from where rays originate, you may not - nevertheless- call mass 'energy'. And you may not put an equal sign in-between, because those quantities are not equal. > >> SRT assume the influence of velocity in respect to some sort of 'true' >> background, without giving a hint, what that should be. > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There is no "background" in SR. But in respect to what is then the velocity 'v' relative to? > But there is geometry, and the geometry of a manifold naturally provides > locally inertial frames relative to which the equations of physics are > simpler, and relative to which velocity can be measured and its effects > observed/calculated. > > >> SRT uses a completely bogus definition of simultaneity. > > No. The world we inhabit does not permit the "simultaneity" you WISH > WERE POSSIBLE. SR merely reflects the structure of the world we inhabit. I would *define* simultaneity by utilising a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity. Such a signal does not exist. But this is not relevant for a definition. SRT uses a second observer and his clocks. But I see no compelling reason, why there should be any second object involved. So I would not synchronise clocks and stick to local time (because there ain't no other). But this local time has a certain relation to other times, in other FoR. If such other objects occur, then it would be necessary to estimate, how fast clocks would tick there, since it could be dangerous to enter a different 'time domain'. (try to find a video of the impact on 'Temple I'). > >> The effects described (time dilation ...) in SRT do not stem from >> velocity, but >> from acceleration. > > This is JUST PLAIN NOT TRUE. Your decision? I would say, acceleration is, what causes relativistic effects. I would say so, because of my concept of the 'self-centred observer'. This observer is always somewhere and wherever that is, is the centre of the (his) universe. So the observer is at rest by definition. To make some use of relativity, I could only use acceleration. This is actually supported by real observations, like that of the experiment at the Harvard towers. Also the so called Pioneer anomaly could be explain with such an assumption. > >> SRT uses mutual relations (clock synchronisation) without a hint, for >> what purpose. > > The "hint" is that "mutual time dilation" (etc.) are required for > self-consistency of the theory. What? > > When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of basic physics, all you can > do is make stupid remarks. Like those above. Well, maybe, but you -as a professional- could certainly reply less stupid. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 08:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1q966$3u4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369268 |
On 11/6/2015 10:50 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.10.2015 17:06, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> On 10/17/15 10/17/15 - 12:35 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 16.10.2015 17:26, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>>> I have assumed, that SRT >>>>> is wrong. >>>> But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR >>>> are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this >>>> easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY >>>> DIFFICULT. >>> >>> No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are >>> illogic. >> >> But it doesn't. You do need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_ before you >> can understand the logic behind it. Your GUESSES are wrong, and that's >> where the "illogic" crept in. > > Ok. > let me sum up my critique on SRT: > > I assume, the formula E=m*c² is wrong, because it should say E= - delta > m * c². > > This is so, because the formula describes radioactive decay and the > energy of the emitted ray is E, while the lost mast of the sample is > delta m. And both have opposite signs (gain equals minus loss). I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the equation. > > SRT assume the influence of velocity in respect to some sort of 'true' > background, without giving a hint, what that should be. I don't think it says any such thing about a "true background". > > SRT uses a completely bogus definition of simultaneity. What do you think is wrong with it? > > The effects described (time dilation ...) in SRT do not stem from > velocity, but from acceleration. Not so, though I think you are confusing a *change* in duration as time dilation, which of course would be associated with acceleration. > > SRT uses mutual relations (clock synchronisation) without a hint, for > what purpose. So what I'm getting a read on is that your critique of SRT is that there are pieces of it that are mysterious to you, which you regard as a problem with the theory rather than as a problem with your approach to learning it. As mentioned earlier, scientists judge theories according to agreement with experimental results, not according to their clarity to amateurs. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 06:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d153a1b-4b44-4782-bcda-6c42ef1b149e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369430 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 15:05:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > learning it. As mentioned earlier, scientists judge theories according > to agreement with experimental results, not according to their clarity > to amateurs. A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. You really, really know nothing about theories, scientists and their choices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee7ca8b9-e7be-4738-a934-bc3cc94e6305@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369431 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:13:31 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 15:05:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin > napisał: > > > learning it. As mentioned earlier, scientists judge theories according > > to agreement with experimental results, not according to their clarity > > to amateurs. > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > You really, really know nothing about theories, > scientists and their choices. Things that you, as a poor software programmer in Poland, know perfectly well from A to Z. Give me a break!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 07:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <187ac8b1-b10d-4743-9fd6-fd40ef083845@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369432 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 15:49:38 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:13:31 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 15:05:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin > > napisał: > > > > > learning it. As mentioned earlier, scientists judge theories according > > > to agreement with experimental results, not according to their clarity > > > to amateurs. > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > You really, really know nothing about theories, > > scientists and their choices. > > Things that you, as a poor software programmer in Poland, know perfectly well from A to Z. > > Give me a break!!!! We're taught to take things the way they are, not the way they're said to be. Your bunch of morons doesn't have know how. Besides, actually, science is a process of software development. The difference is, that instead computers science is programming morons like you. Perfectly? No. The subject is complicated. Really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 22:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s96dnfVUSYnA7tzLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369434 |
On 11/9/15 11/9/15 9:08 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > We're taught to take things the way they are, > not the way they're said to be. THEN WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT???? Experiments show that things [#] _ARE_ the way SR describes them, not the way Newton described them. [#] physical phenomena within the domain of SR. > [further nonsense unrelated to the above] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 23:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2b71199-14b2-4b48-ae21-4e17a6f47cd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369496 |
W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 05:32:31 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 9:08 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > We're taught to take things the way they are, > > not the way they're said to be. > > THEN WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT???? > > Experiments show that things [#] _ARE_ the way SR describes them, not the way > Newton described them. You mean zillions of experiments made by gedanken twins in gedanken rockets, of course? But you didn't read, as expected. I'm talking about the way science works. It's not the way you, scientists, describe. Not at all. Science is really, really, really complicated. You could guess it is, if you weren't such a moron. And it's ugly. Your nice, simple pictures of science have nothing in common with reality. Partially because you understand nothing of it, and partially because you're involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 03:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0267c4a0-8032-49b0-b468-eea06f314dc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369506 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:35:18 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 05:32:31 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 9:08 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > We're taught to take things the way they are, > > > not the way they're said to be. > > > > THEN WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT???? > > > > Experiments show that things [#] _ARE_ the way SR describes them, not the way > > Newton described them. > > You mean zillions of experiments made by gedanken > twins in gedanken rockets, of course? > > But you didn't read, as expected. > I'm talking about the way science works. > It's not the way you, scientists, describe. > Not at all. > Science is really, really, really complicated. > You could guess it is, if you weren't such a > moron. And it's ugly. Your nice, simple pictures > of science have nothing in common with reality. > Partially because you understand nothing of it, > and partially because you're involved. So spoke the polish software programmer!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 03:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ed8ccd3-d565-4c8e-ae48-6a1705e25115@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369521 |
W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 12:24:18 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:35:18 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 05:32:31 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 9:08 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > We're taught to take things the way they are, > > > > not the way they're said to be. > > > > > > THEN WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT???? > > > > > > Experiments show that things [#] _ARE_ the way SR describes them, not the way > > > Newton described them. > > > > You mean zillions of experiments made by gedanken > > twins in gedanken rockets, of course? > > > > But you didn't read, as expected. > > I'm talking about the way science works. > > It's not the way you, scientists, describe. > > Not at all. > > Science is really, really, really complicated. > > You could guess it is, if you weren't such a > > moron. And it's ugly. Your nice, simple pictures > > of science have nothing in common with reality. > > Partially because you understand nothing of it, > > and partially because you're involved. > > So spoke the polish software programmer!!! Right, poor idiot. This is, what I spoke. Now, which one of these abuses is for you the worst and the most depreciating, "Polish", "software" or "programmer"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 04:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8d2a568f-e230-4958-9225-7f90e8fb9d3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369522 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:36:07 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 12:24:18 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios > > > > > > You mean zillions of experiments made by gedanken > > > twins in gedanken rockets, of course? > > > > > > But you didn't read, as expected. > > > I'm talking about the way science works. > > > It's not the way you, scientists, describe. > > > Not at all. > > > Science is really, really, really complicated. > > > You could guess it is, if you weren't such a > > > moron. And it's ugly. Your nice, simple pictures > > > of science have nothing in common with reality. > > > Partially because you understand nothing of it, > > > and partially because you're involved. > > > > So spoke the polish software programmer!!! > > Right, poor idiot. This is, what I spoke. > Now, which one of these abuses is for you > the worst and the most depreciating, "Polish", > "software" or "programmer"? Are you not polish? Are you not a software programmer? The fact that you are good at insulting people, does not imply that the rest of the people here do the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d7b98bd-f8c5-4e7c-b1ca-f39b028826f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369523 |
W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 13:07:34 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > So spoke the polish software programmer!!! > > > > Right, poor idiot. This is, what I spoke. > > Now, which one of these abuses is for you > > the worst and the most depreciating, "Polish", > > "software" or "programmer"? > > Are you not polish? No, I'm Polish. > Are you not a software programmer? > The fact that you are good at insulting people, does not imply that the rest > of the people here do the same. No. Most of you are poor even at insulting. Now, which one is is for you the worst and the most depreciating?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 05:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6fdb2b9b-0b16-429f-b136-2dbb23f19bf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369526 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:53:04 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 13:07:34 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > So spoke the polish software programmer!!! > > > > > > Right, poor idiot. This is, what I spoke. > > > Now, which one of these abuses is for you > > > the worst and the most depreciating, "Polish", > > > "software" or "programmer"? > > > > Are you not polish? > > No, I'm Polish. > > > Are you not a software programmer? > > The fact that you are good at insulting people, does not imply that the rest > of the people here do the same. > > No. Most of you are poor even at insulting. > Now, which one is is for you the worst and > the most depreciating? So, you are a Polish Software Programmer, pretending to know more about how science works and scientists do their work than real scientists like Tom Roberts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 05:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be4d7806-f9d2-49b7-ba4a-7a10c8252555@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369527 |
W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 14:21:58 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:53:04 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 13:07:34 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > > So spoke the polish software programmer!!! > > > > > > > > Right, poor idiot. This is, what I spoke. > > > > Now, which one of these abuses is for you > > > > the worst and the most depreciating, "Polish", > > > > "software" or "programmer"? > > > > > > Are you not polish? > > > > No, I'm Polish. > > > > > Are you not a software programmer? > > > The fact that you are good at insulting people, does not imply that the rest > of the people here do the same. > > > > No. Most of you are poor even at insulting. > > Now, which one is is for you the worst and > > the most depreciating? > > So, you are a Polish Software Programmer, pretending > to know more about how science works and scientists > do their work than real scientists like Tom > Roberts. :) He is a physicist. His job is to know about muons, black holes, photons etc. I'm an informatic. My job is to know, how information works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web