Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:38 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-17 06:46 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:10 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-17 12:24 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-18 01:53 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 13:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 15:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 14:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 17:11 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-18 17:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 03:01 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 14:36 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:15 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-20 16:27 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:34 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:17 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-19 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 07:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:26 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-21 12:03 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 22:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 07:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 07:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 17:07 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 09:05 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 18:33 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 21:28 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 21:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:58 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:11 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 23:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 06:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 07:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 09:20 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 04:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:56 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 08:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:37 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 15:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 07:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 19:27 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-18 05:12 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 21:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 06:36 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 07:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:15 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 14:22 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 18:29 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 11:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-08 19:05 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 20:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 14:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> - 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 19:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 21:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 22:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 22:37 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-16 05:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-15 23:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 21:11 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-15 23:29 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 23:40 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 00:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 04:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-16 22:36 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 23:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 18:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-18 06:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-19 05:32 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-19 13:11 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-19 22:33 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 21:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-20 04:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-19 22:36 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <daangiFfeq3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369402 |
Am 08.11.2015 22:55, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com: > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:52:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true? > >> Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains >> mass from the inside. >> >> (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics >> practically useless.) > >> I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience >> as Neil Adams did: >> >> it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence >> as long as they possibly can. > > So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored? > How much do you want? Let me begin with problems of moving plates (what 'plate tectonics' is about): the crust of planet Earth rests on the mantle and this mantle is not liquid. Instead we have a very dense semi-plastic material. So we have problems, to see compelling reason, why plates should float. Since the density is higher, we have also a problem with submerging pieces of the crust. Then the Earth is completely covered with crust, which contains only small cracks. So, if plates move, they must make space for themselves, by pushing other pieces away. The problem is related to a theorem of Euler, that movement of a piece of the spherial shell of a ball upon this ball is equivalent to a rotation of this piece around a so called 'Euler pole'. In other words: the part of this piece, that is opposite to this Euler pole should look round (what is doesn't). Then we have the problem of pressure, that applies sideways between these plates. since the plates are quite thick and the borders are very long, we have a huge area, upon which a high pressure presses the pieces side against the neighbouring plate. From the rules of mechanics we know, this would require a high force, that would be larger than the resistance. Also the form of plates would hinder movements, since they do not look like made for sliding along other plates. If a plate would submerge, this plate had to overcome a difficult problem. This is related to the reason, why egg-shells are so strong: if you try to bent down a hard spherical sheet, this sheet would create internal pressure, since the piece is spherical. Also the thickness of the plate would require, that upper parts of the piece are stretched, while lower parts are pushed together. Since rock is quite incompressible, we would expect large parallel cracks, where such a piece submerges. (what we don't find) Also the age of the crust and the sea-floor does not fit to plate tectonics. Instead the surface of the continents is in the range of billion of years, while the sea-floor is no older than about 300 million years. Continents look way to levelled for way too long time, since if plates would move, emerge and dive under other ones, theses pieces would not stay horizontal. There is evidence for steady drop of sea-levels, what plate tectonic can't explain, but what Growing Earth assumes. Growing Earth would explain, why planets exist in the first place or why there are so many double-star systems. The assumption is, that Jupiter will once become a sun and its current moons will become planets then. and so forth.. (This was meant as a small sample of what I had to say about this subject. But I can provide more, if you like.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dad6ooF4c8nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369402 |
Am 08.11.2015 22:55, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com:
>> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?
>> > Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
>> > mass from the inside.
>> >
>> > (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
>> > practically useless.)
>> > I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience
>> > as Neil Adams did:
>> >
>> > it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
>> > as long as they possibly can.
> So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored?
>
> you know, of course, that you are dangerously close to earning 40 points on the Crackpot Index...
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
What I actually think is this:
in the late 19th century certain discoveries have been made.
They turned out to be useful, but only, if they were kept secret.
I think, that the ideas of Maxwell have been quite close to such
discoveries, since he had used quaternions. His famous equations have
been initially 20 quaternion equations, from what we today know only 4.
The rest have been removed from science by a coordinated afford of very
influential forces.
Instead some carefully crafted nonsense was created and 'sold' to the
public.
This scheme is similar to 'voodoo' (or other forms of occultism), since
it attempts to kept certain knowledge secret.
But it is possible to estimate, who did that and how. And this would
allow to estimate, why that had happened.
First: who?
Actually a guy named Heaviside removed quaternions and replaced them by
vectors.
Vectors are linear by nature and belong to the idea of sums, while
quaternions are 'more multiplicative' and 'curved', hence are much more
appropriate for the description of fields and particles.
Than we have Planck, who resembles in a way 'Darth Vader' and who
introduced certain principles, that made physicists look even closer -
in the wrong direction.
Than we have Albert Einstein, who tried to eliminate, what Maxwell still
believed in: the 'aether'.
This was replaced by particles ('..moving bodies..'), for what a
plausible origin was needed: 'big-bang-theory'.
This was provided by a Jesuit: Lemaitre.
Then we have 'evidence' by an apparently British astronomer, posing as
American: Edwin Hubble.
In the meantime, there were sceptics criticising this development, who
developed alternative ideas.
E.g. there was Herman Minkovski, who invented something similar to GR.
And geologists found, the Earth would grow, like the German Hilgenberger.
And than certain things have been developed, that look really 'far out'
today:
'Vril' for example, anti-gravity, bio-energy or 'structured water' by
Victor Schauberger.
All of this is now - somehow- removed from the public, especially from
academic research.
Instead we have such elaborated nonsense as 'Global Climate Change',
caused (allegedly) by CO2.
More nonsense was produced, but not that elaborated.
Then the poor students of physics have been forced to swallow the
nonsense, unless they want to be expelled from the holy sect of academics.
But some outsiders seem to be 'silenced' in a more active manner.
E.g. there was a guy named Stanley Meyer, who ran his car by water and
who died after crying 'I was poisoned'.
Other unexpected death occured with Nicola Tesla, Victor Schauberger and
Herman Minkowski.
Another method to silence dissidents was apparently the use of
institutions for mental health. Famous example: Andre Sacharov.
But more efficient is actually: more nonsense, much more!
So this science is kind of flooded with all sorts of questionable
'knowledge', that nobody cares to sort out. And more is created on a
daily basis - much more actually.
As I'm not a physicist and do not belong to any kind of sect, I have not
known anything about it.
But for some personal reason I had made the decision, I should try to
understand modern physics. This is more or less a hobby. But I had
produced something and found:
'...that was in a way too easy...'
So I have tried to 'reverse engineer' this 'plot'.
But such an endeavour is dangerous, since based on speculations only,
which could bring one into one of these institutions.
So, I decided, physics is not for me and moved to other subjects.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9d5f289-07bb-461b-81f6-3f231b810769@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369493 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:31:41 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.11.2015 22:55, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com: > >> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true? > >> > Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains > >> > mass from the inside. > >> > > >> > (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics > >> > practically useless.) > >> > I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience > >> > as Neil Adams did: > >> > > >> > it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence > >> > as long as they possibly can. > > So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored? > > > > you know, of course, that you are dangerously close to earning 40 points on the Crackpot Index... > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html > > > > 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. > > > What I actually think is this: > > in the late 19th century certain discoveries have been made. > > They turned out to be useful, but only, if they were kept secret. > > I think, that the ideas of Maxwell have been quite close to such > discoveries, since he had used quaternions. His famous equations have > been initially 20 quaternion equations, from what we today know only 4. Things have progressed since the 19th century. We are way beyond quaternions now, look up "Clifford algebra". > The rest have been removed from science by a coordinated afford of very > influential forces. No. This is science fiction. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e2d255d-2c6c-4150-a092-45eac1b2e572@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369493 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:31:41 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2015 22:55, schrieb pnal...@gmail.com:
> >> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?
> >> > Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
> >> > mass from the inside.
> >> >
> >> > (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
> >> > practically useless.)
> >> > I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience
> >> > as Neil Adams did:
> >> >
> >> > it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
> >> > as long as they possibly can.
> > So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored?
> >
> > you know, of course, that you are dangerously close to earning 40 points on the Crackpot Index...
> >
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> >
> > 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
>
>
> What I actually think is this:
>
> in the late 19th century certain discoveries have been made.
>
> They turned out to be useful, but only, if they were kept secret.
>
> I think, that the ideas of Maxwell have been quite close to such
> discoveries, since he had used quaternions. His famous equations have
> been initially 20 quaternion equations, from what we today know only 4.
>
> The rest have been removed from science by a coordinated afford of very
> influential forces.
>
> Instead some carefully crafted nonsense was created and 'sold' to the
> public.
>
> This scheme is similar to 'voodoo' (or other forms of occultism), since
> it attempts to kept certain knowledge secret.
>
> But it is possible to estimate, who did that and how. And this would
> allow to estimate, why that had happened.
>
> First: who?
>
> Actually a guy named Heaviside removed quaternions and replaced them by
> vectors.
>
> Vectors are linear by nature and belong to the idea of sums, while
> quaternions are 'more multiplicative' and 'curved', hence are much more
> appropriate for the description of fields and particles.
>
> Than we have Planck, who resembles in a way 'Darth Vader' and who
> introduced certain principles, that made physicists look even closer -
> in the wrong direction.
>
> Than we have Albert Einstein, who tried to eliminate, what Maxwell still
> believed in: the 'aether'.
>
> This was replaced by particles ('..moving bodies..'), for what a
> plausible origin was needed: 'big-bang-theory'.
>
> This was provided by a Jesuit: Lemaitre.
>
> Then we have 'evidence' by an apparently British astronomer, posing as
> American: Edwin Hubble.
>
> In the meantime, there were sceptics criticising this development, who
> developed alternative ideas.
>
> E.g. there was Herman Minkovski, who invented something similar to GR.
>
> And geologists found, the Earth would grow, like the German Hilgenberger.
>
> And than certain things have been developed, that look really 'far out'
> today:
> 'Vril' for example, anti-gravity, bio-energy or 'structured water' by
> Victor Schauberger.
>
> All of this is now - somehow- removed from the public, especially from
> academic research.
>
> Instead we have such elaborated nonsense as 'Global Climate Change',
> caused (allegedly) by CO2.
>
> More nonsense was produced, but not that elaborated.
>
> Then the poor students of physics have been forced to swallow the
> nonsense, unless they want to be expelled from the holy sect of academics.
>
> But some outsiders seem to be 'silenced' in a more active manner.
>
> E.g. there was a guy named Stanley Meyer, who ran his car by water and
> who died after crying 'I was poisoned'.
>
> Other unexpected death occured with Nicola Tesla, Victor Schauberger and
> Herman Minkowski.
>
> Another method to silence dissidents was apparently the use of
> institutions for mental health. Famous example: Andre Sacharov.
>
> But more efficient is actually: more nonsense, much more!
>
> So this science is kind of flooded with all sorts of questionable
> 'knowledge', that nobody cares to sort out. And more is created on a
> daily basis - much more actually.
>
> As I'm not a physicist and do not belong to any kind of sect, I have not
> known anything about it.
>
> But for some personal reason I had made the decision, I should try to
> understand modern physics. This is more or less a hobby. But I had
> produced something and found:
> '...that was in a way too easy...'
>
> So I have tried to 'reverse engineer' this 'plot'.
>
> But such an endeavour is dangerous, since based on speculations only,
> which could bring one into one of these institutions.
>
> So, I decided, physics is not for me and moved to other subjects.
>
>
> TH
So, essentially you are just a basic run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist, who has no trust of mainstream physicists... right? Even though you don't understand a darn thing about physics, you just don't trust them... makes perfect sense to me!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1tn98$osj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369501 |
pnalsing wrote:
> So, essentially you are just a basic run-of-the-mill conspiracy
> theorist, who has no trust of mainstream physicists... right?
Not quite. Thomas Heger is batshit insane and has an extreme,
uncontrollable hatred for scientists and all intellectual
activities in general. This has led him to be a conspiracy kook.
Pretty much everything he says about relativity is seriously
misinformed, and the same can be said for his irrational fixation
on 'growing earth', where he has shown stunning lack of study of the
basics of modern concepts in geoscience in favor of pure crankery.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1tobt$rpe$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369578 |
On 11/10/2015 3:23 PM, shuba wrote: > pnalsing wrote: > >> So, essentially you are just a basic run-of-the-mill conspiracy >> theorist, who has no trust of mainstream physicists... right? > > Not quite. Thomas Heger is batshit insane and has an extreme, > uncontrollable hatred for scientists and all intellectual > activities in general. This has led him to be a conspiracy kook. > > Pretty much everything he says about relativity is seriously > misinformed, and the same can be said for his irrational fixation > on 'growing earth', where he has shown stunning lack of study of the > basics of modern concepts in geoscience in favor of pure crankery. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- > It's just a preliminary observation, but it seems to me there are really only a few that post here that have an outright hatred of scientists. However, there are a lot of them that feel excluded from the activities of science. They really aren't, but that's their perception. Their perceptions is based on a number of mistaken assumptions and inappropriate opinions: - That all scientific publications should be written for the interested layperson. - That all scientific publications should be open-access and freely accessible without logins, pay walls, or subscriptions. - That scientists should seize on any idea presented by anyone, as long as it is presented with earnest sincerity, and that scientists owe it to laypeople to work out those sincerely offered ideas to see if they are legitimate or not. - That validity of ideas should be obvious from reading, rather than from experimental test. Thomas is one of the larger pool. He's by no means alone. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <daflsqFnj2tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369580 |
Am 10.11.2015 22:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 11/10/2015 3:23 PM, shuba wrote: >> pnalsing wrote: >> >>> So, essentially you are just a basic run-of-the-mill conspiracy >>> theorist, who has no trust of mainstream physicists... right? >> >> Not quite. Thomas Heger is batshit insane and has an extreme, >> uncontrollable hatred for scientists and all intellectual >> activities in general. This has led him to be a conspiracy kook. >> >> Pretty much everything he says about relativity is seriously >> misinformed, and the same can be said for his irrational fixation >> on 'growing earth', where he has shown stunning lack of study of the >> basics of modern concepts in geoscience in favor of pure crankery. >> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong. What is wrong (if GE is true), that is the 'absoluteness' of matter. I have put matter into the realm of relativistic subjects, like space and time and wrote: what is matter for one observer is radiation for another observer. This assumption I needed for my concept called 'structured spacetime'. And for this I needed a plausible observation and GE should provide that. Growing Earth is actually an example, that violates the so called standard model, since planets could not grow from inside, if the idea of particles would be correct. This is because the growth is not by gain of dust or alike, but by creation of matter and mass inside the planet. Such creation of matter could be observed in other circumstances as well, if my assumption would be correct. So I assume, that it is possible to create dust inside a closed cube of transparent plastic, if this is put into a chamber with 'hard' pulsed microwaves. This is in the sense of Poppers scientific method a testable assumption and would allow to distinguish the ideas (absolute vs relative matter) by an experiment. > > It's just a preliminary observation, but it seems to me there are really > only a few that post here that have an outright hatred of scientists. that is simply not true. I have sentiments against certain circles, that are (apparently) mostly anglo-american, about which I assume, they would like to create a worldwide fascistic dictatorship, commonly called 'New World Order'. It's like JFK once said: '..we are facing around the globe a wast and ruthless conspiracy...'. And certain parts of science are apparently involved. Most likely that was not the idea of scientists, but people are people and like to keep their jobs. And if the employer has something to hide, so will the employee. It is in fact true, that I spent some time now on such subjects like 9/11. So instead of physics I have changed the subject of my hobby to 'conspiracy theories'. My method is like an attempt to 'reverse engineer' occultism. This is meant as trying to understand, what certain sects actually do and why they would do that. This is quite difficult, since 'occult' means 'secret'. And such sects do not like at all, what I try to do. So maybe I'm wrong, with what I assume. But incorrect assumptions are kind of price, you need to pay, if you like to deepen the understanding of certain subjects. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1u7q9$o81$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369606 |
On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the > way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong. But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas. If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple: Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity. The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong. The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has no value in science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dag1ikFq1ofU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369608 |
Am 11.11.2015 03:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the >> way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong. > > But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas. > > If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with > each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple: > Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of > measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or > replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity. > The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong. > > The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has > no value in science. > But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction): the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per millennium. Reason: 'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while 'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth. This 'steady state' of PT requires 'subduction', to balance expansion (of oceans). So PT assumes kind of 'conveyor belt' mechanism, where plates emerge at certain places. This is balanced by subduction. GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels (while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for falling sea-levels in historic times. Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to understand certain geological formations. Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast. E.g. ships drowned in the former Viking harbour Haitabu. They are found today on land and that would require, that the Baltic Sea had been much higher then. Or 'Portus Romae' is now a lake near Fiomicino airport (8m above sea-level). Troy was once a port and now rests on a hill, 5 km from the coast (hight about 30 m). So we can estimate the age of the oldest parts of Troy as 7500 years. But also much longer time-spans are possible (change rate was slower in earlier times). My favourite example is the Atacama desert. This place is famous for petrified guano, called Chilenian-saltpeter. The desert looks like a dried out former internal sea, (much like the dead sea). Only it is high in the mountains. It seems to be an inhabited coast, since someone left large 'drawings' in the landscape - in places, that look like related to this coast. Since the desert is dry for about 15 mio years, humans (or similar) must have lived there that long ago. The age is known with high degree of certainty, because the desert is covered with gypsum and that could be used to estimate, when the water dried out. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <igl54b5lfi6h5c1v7bevu153pf6jrdr7vq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369626 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:21:29 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 11.11.2015 03:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the
>>> way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong.
>>
>> But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas.
>>
>> If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with
>> each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple:
>> Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of
>> measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or
>> replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity.
>> The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong.
>>
>> The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has
>> no value in science.
>>
>
>
>But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):
>
>the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per
>millennium.
>
>Reason:
>
>'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but
>differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while
>'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth.
>
>This 'steady state' of PT requires 'subduction', to balance expansion
>(of oceans).
>
>So PT assumes kind of 'conveyor belt' mechanism, where plates emerge at
>certain places. This is balanced by subduction.
>
>GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels
>(while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for
>falling sea-levels in historic times.
>
>Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth
>development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few
>thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to
>understand certain geological formations.
>
>Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast.
>
>E.g. ships drowned in the former Viking harbour Haitabu. They are found
>today on land and that would require, that the Baltic Sea had been much
>higher then.
>
>Or 'Portus Romae' is now a lake near Fiomicino airport (8m above sea-level).
Heger, you just read one account, and
jump around without really investigating the
issue.
The problem with many coastal areas is
silting, causing river deltas and all kinds of
change in the topology.
And, many areas have either fallen,
or risen, due to underground sinking or
upheavals, for instance, the Petrified Forest
in Arizona uplifted 4000 feet to be where it
is now.
:"They expect Portus, which had to be abandoned after it began to silt up
:in the 6th century, to eventually rank alongside some of the world's
:best-known ancient cities. "Portus must be one of the most important
:archaeological sites in the world," said Prof Keay.
:"The great thing about Portus is that most of it has been preserved and
:there is much more to learn about the important role it played in
:Rome's success."
The silting, upheavals and subsidence
has very little to do with sea levels which are
known to have risen in the last 2000 years by
as much as 10 meters:
Over longer periods, sea levels have
changed, but not in the way you describe,
in fact, your insane delusions are not even
close to the facts;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
>Troy was once a port and now rests on a hill, 5 km from the coast (hight
>about 30 m). So we can estimate the age of the oldest parts of Troy as
>7500 years.
>
>But also much longer time-spans are possible (change rate was slower in
>earlier times). My favourite example is the Atacama desert.
>
>This place is famous for petrified guano, called Chilenian-saltpeter.
>
>The desert looks like a dried out former internal sea, (much like the
>dead sea). Only it is high in the mountains.
>
>It seems to be an inhabited coast, since someone left large 'drawings'
>in the landscape - in places, that look like related to this coast.
>
>Since the desert is dry for about 15 mio years, humans (or similar) must
>have lived there that long ago.
>
>The age is known with high degree of certainty, because the desert is
>covered with gypsum and that could be used to estimate, when the water
>dried out.
>
>TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6eaaa13e-fc0c-4e88-885e-413c6f406f59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369626 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:21:30 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction): > > the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per > millennium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png Four meters/millennium is 4 cm/decade. Sea levels have risen NINE INCHES in the past 133 years. Your speculation is refuted. > Reason: > > 'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but > differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while > 'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth. > .... > GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels > (while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for > falling sea-levels in historic times. > > Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth > development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few > thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to > understand certain geological formations. That's baloney. We can read the record for the past 20 Kyears and there has been nothing but a rise of 120 METERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png > Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast. Hints aren't measured data. Your baloney is busted by actual evidence. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1vg1l$84u$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369626 |
On 11/10/2015 11:21 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction): > > the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per > millennium. This would be true not only in our times but over the course of history, ever since earth's formation, right? I mean, it's not like the growing earth just started growing in the last couple of centuries, right? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dah6fqF4jjoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369651 |
Am 11.11.2015 14:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 11/10/2015 11:21 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction): >> >> the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per >> millennium. > > This would be true not only in our times but over the course of history, > ever since earth's formation, right? I mean, it's not like the growing > earth just started growing in the last couple of centuries, right? > That's almost right. But I would expect accelerated growth: The same growth of the last 60 million years took 600 million years before. (according to Neil Adams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ ) So this rate is our present rate of change. And: the amount of water is not constant in 'Growing Earth'. GE assumes, that matter is created inside the planet and water is among these substances, that come out of the inner Earth. So GE assumes a steady increase of the light gases and of water, too, that are gassing out of volcanoes. And then we have hard materials, that are eroded on land or stem from eruptions. These would also influence the sea-levels. So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE. Also other celestial objects show the same behaviour, hence similar effects should be observable on all planets, moons or sons. And, as a matter of fact, Neil Adams made animations, that show such growth on Mars and the moons of Jupiter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1vqa7$j5$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369683 |
On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE. Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a prediction, which you claimed to be able to do. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dahrcsFa564U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369687 |
Am 11.11.2015 17:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE. > > Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a > prediction, which you claimed to be able to do. > Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and water). There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated (if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but geology was not my subject. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3ki74bdu8bmkm67toce5pfsjlc1qk89jch@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369700 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:48:08 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 11.11.2015 17:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE.
>>
>> Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a
>> prediction, which you claimed to be able to do.
>>
>
>Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for
>another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and
>water).
>
>There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated
>(if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but
>geology was not my subject.
>
>TH
If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
Nothing you have written is of any interest,
because it is all fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <daim1cFg1o6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369708 |
Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer: >> Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for >> another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and >> water). >> >> There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated >> (if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but >> geology was not my subject. >> >> TH > > If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism > that could create new matter "within" the Earth, > you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase. > Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults). So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve some sort of interest (in physics). I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for this model: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my suggestion for how to connect GR to QM. I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct: it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves. Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such experiments). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hnb84bhbnepbidfr263a4piaem3928qoae@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369758 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:22:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer:
>
>>> Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for
>>> another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and
>>> water).
>>>
>>> There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated
>>> (if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but
>>> geology was not my subject.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
>> that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
>> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
>>
>
>Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).
>
>So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve
>some sort of interest (in physics).
>
>I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even
>have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for
>this model:
>
>https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
>The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my
>suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.
>
>I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
>it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.
>
>Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But
>eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such
>experiments).
>
>TH
I am not insulting you, I am just telling you
that you are fixated on an insane, impossible,
goofy idea that you can't shake, and it is making
you a stupid, insane nutcase.
The maximum amount of mass that results
from cosmic rays is about 2 pounds per year,
and there are many thousands of times that
much dust and meteorites falling from space
on the surface.
No matter how big a lab machine you
could afford, it wouldn't produce in a million
years what the cosmic rays produce in
one second.
So, kiss my ass, nutcase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c6aaf80e-4c61-4bd6-bb83-f640ce1fbf1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369762 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:23:30 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:22:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > > > >Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer: > > > > > > If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism > > > that could create new matter "within" the Earth, > > > you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase. > > > > > > > Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults). > > > > So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve > > some sort of interest (in physics). > > > > I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even > > have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for > > this model: > > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > > The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my > > suggestion for how to connect GR to QM. > > > > I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct: > > it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves. [It's not possible, as explained previously] > >Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But > > eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such > > experiments). > > > >TH Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven. Now don't you feel sorry for him? > I am not insulting you, Yes, you were, and you still are. > I am just telling you that you are fixated on an insane, impossible, > goofy idea that you can't shake, and it is making you a stupid, insane > nutcase. It's very ironic that you don't see yourself in this very same category :-) > The maximum amount of mass that results > from cosmic rays is about 2 pounds per year, > and there are many thousands of times that > much dust and meteorites falling from space > on the surface. Irrelevant. There is still SOME matter being generated within the earth from neutrino capture. > No matter how big a lab machine you > could afford, it wouldn't produce in a million > years what the cosmic rays produce in > one second. Irrelevant. Comparisons are not appropriate. > So, kiss my ass, nutcase. See? You insulted him AGAIN! And he has NEVER insulted you, but has been a perfect gentleman. A compulsive crackpot, but polite. You, OTOH, have been an ornery compulsive crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dakb81Ftg9gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369775 |
Am 12.11.2015 13:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism >>>> that could create new matter "within" the Earth, >>>> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase. Yes, I do in fact think, there is a possible mechanism. That's why I have written, that I wanted to prove this mechanism with proving 'Growing Earth'. >>> Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults). >>> >>> So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve >>> some sort of interest (in physics). >>> >>> I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even >>> have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for >>> this model: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>> >>> The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my >>> suggestion for how to connect GR to QM. >>> >>> I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct: >>> it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves. > > [It's not possible, as explained previously] How do you know? MY assumption: it is possible to create dust by pure em-means, like pulsed microwaves. So, why don#t you ask me something like: why do you think so? Or: how do you justify this assumption? But you declare: this is not possible. But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what is not? >> >Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But >>> eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such >>> experiments). >>> >>> TH > > Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven. Now don't you feel sorry > for him? I'm thinking more about something like radar, or at least a little more power than a regular microwave oven. I also want very high voltages and adjustable frequency and pulse-width, but what this wave is modulated. Possibly two (or even three) waves are needed. >> I am not insulting you, > > Yes, you were, and you still are. Well, insults are actually not the real problem. since - after all - this is the UseNet. If someone hacks insults into his keyboard, than this is more his problem, rather than mine. My problem is more like that of some other guys, like Neil Adams, Richard Oldershaw or Pentcho Valev: I have a certain idea and like to discuss that. But this is almost completely impossible. I receive almost never a comment about my 'book', but always comments from people, that like to teach me, what I shall learn and how little I know. But how much or little I know, that is irrelevant. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web