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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ia0a4bhqlfcm259ioin1h5bagkoc8q1e6u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369823 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:30:53 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>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
Then why don't you discuss something
that is physically possible, rather than something
out of nothing.
Microwave ovens are radar frequency,
why do you need more power?
The center of the Earth gets NO radar,
and thinking radar can produce dust out of
nothing is goofy, unless you at least use the
formula E = mc^2, which gives you m = E/c^2,
how much mass do you think a Billion KWH
would produce even if your goofy idea worked?
See, I talked about your goofy idea,
but you, and nobody else talked about
my goofy idea. :-)
For your idea to result in the mid-ocean
trenches, there would have to be more
mass produced than falls on the Earth
from space.
And even if that happened, it would
not result in a place for the oceans to
drain into, it is goofy ideas like that
which don't have a rational cause or
a logical result from another process
that makes you a goof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41f9f5fd-2a26-4081-8ab6-8fe1b4563a15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369823 |
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:31:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 12.11.2015 13:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > 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? I explained it. Weren't you paying any attention? > MY assumption: it is possible to create dust by pure em-means, like > pulsed microwaves. Your assumption is dead wrong. > 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. I did NOT "declare" it. I explained why your assumption is incorrect. > But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what is > not? I don't have any authority. The only authority is experimental evidence, and that says you are dead wrong. > > > > 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. Much, much, much more than you even have an inkling. > > > 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. That's a very mature attitude, unlike the guy that verbally assaulted you. > 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 No, it's not irrelevant, particularly when your "assumption" is ruled out by experimental evidence. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n234ua$9ek$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369842 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what >> is not? > > I don't have any authority. The only authority is experimental > evidence, > and that says you are dead wrong. No. Logic suffices. You need fusion to create dust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dal72mF5gk9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369842 |
Am 12.11.2015 23:35, schrieb Gary Harnagel: ... >> 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 > > No, it's not irrelevant, particularly when your "assumption" is ruled out > by experimental evidence. > There exists a common problem in buildings called 'fogging effect'. This is the sudden appearance of dust, for which no reason is known. My assumption was: this effect is 'electric' and caused by things like WiFi or 'em-pollution'. This could be tested, but it would require certain means, which I do not have. But it is actually a guess (assumption) and might be wrong. It is related to the idea I want to promote in this way: I assume, that matter is a certain 'standing rotation wave' (and not composed from particles). The creation of such waves could be provoked by a standing em-waves, which is pulsed (like e.g. radar or cell-phones). If this would be true, than I would expect dust to occur in unusual places (like closed flats). And since acrylic is transparent for em-waves, the dust should occur inside such acrylic cubes. Since such a cubes is sealed, the occurrence of dust inside such a cube would prove my idea. This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not. So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the validity of yours. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ac05c26-74e2-4499-8b85-9be61fd3eacb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369861 |
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:26:04 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific > proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an > idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not. > > So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the > validity of yours. > > TH I don't have an "assumption" and you would lose the bet about yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <danq30Fpur4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369862 |
Am 13.11.2015 05:49, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific >> proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an >> idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not. >> >> So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the >> validity of yours. >> >> TH > > I don't have an "assumption" and you would lose the bet about yours. Ok, you apparently want to bet on your (well.. ) understanding of what you think is true. And I bet on mine. But who 'wins'??? In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an expert.) Since no such experiments have been made, we could search for (somehow) similar experiments. There have been experiments with extremely high currents of George Lochak, that seem to support my assumption: http://lochak.com/Z-files/K_Monopole_Lochak_Urutskoiev.pdf (From here: http://lochak.com/) The question is, how to interpret his experiments. I would say, this is another example, which would prove, the 'particle concept' (called: standard model of qm) is wrong. Why? Well, actually he shows, that elements could be altered without some sort of nuclear reaction, but by high currents. And this would be impossible, if the standard model is correct. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n26tt0$493$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369909 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:danq30Fpur4U1@mid.individual.net... |In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an |expert.) Experiments say it's exactly opposite; thus - this bullshit is a counterexample for itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <daofk2F9dlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369920 |
Am 14.11.2015 10:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > |In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an > |expert.) > > Experiments say it's exactly opposite; thus - this bullshit > is a counterexample for itself. > What is opposite to what? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n274so$aul$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369924 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:daofk2F9dlU1@mid.individual.net... Am 14.11.2015 10:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > |In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an > |expert.) > > Experiments say it's exactly opposite; thus - this bullshit > is a counterexample for itself. > |What is opposite to what? Experiments to the statement above. Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made by High Gurus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369927 |
Am 14.11.2015 12:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:daofk2F9dlU1@mid.individual.net... > > Am 14.11.2015 10:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> > >> |In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an >> |expert.) >> >> Experiments say it's exactly opposite; thus - this bullshit >> is a counterexample for itself. >> > |What is opposite to what? > > Experiments to the statement above. > Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made > by High Gurus. > Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, medicine or in social sciences. But physics is not biology and experiments in physics do not research political questions. Also religion is a different subject, hence 'gurus' (of some kind) may posses the final right of judgement. But this is not a question of physics, but, possibly, of psychology or sociology. There are also different laws in different nations. Since in Germany (where I live) the function of the 'High Guru' is currently vacant, I had to decide myself. But - maybe - your local shaman could help out and deliver his wisdom about the subject of the 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 21:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2aoq2$ol2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370129 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net... > Experiments to the statement above. > Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made > by High Gurus. > |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, |medicine or in social sciences. Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, assumptions are important in any science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 22:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dasbigFqeqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370136 |
Am 15.11.2015 21:09, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net... > >> Experiments to the statement above. >> Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made >> by High Gurus. >> > > |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. > |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, > |medicine or in social sciences. > > Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics > inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, > assumptions are important in any science. You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. Only: these models are not reality. The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and the real food, they serve in a restaurant. 'Experiments' are more like what children do, when they play. These little 'scientists' explore their environment usually by 'experiments' (what happens, if I do this....?). After such experimental phase, the results are cast into a usable model - for which mathematics is required. Another part is observation, like that of stars or other natural phenomena. To make observations or to plan an experiment, there are usually ideas necessary. These ideas are essential and are not related to mathematics, but stem from observation of a phenomenon and trying to find an explanation. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 22:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2atv4$tjo$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370140 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dasbigFqeqU1@mid.individual.net... Am 15.11.2015 21:09, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net... > >> Experiments to the statement above. >> Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made >> by High Gurus. >> > > |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. > |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, > |medicine or in social sciences. > > Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics > inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, > assumptions are important in any science. |You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. |Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. |Only: these models are not reality. |The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and |the real food, they serve in a restaurant. Listen, don't tell me about models. It's my profession, and I can see clearly it's not Yours. As You don't know much of them, You don't know they are assumptions based. It's common engineering, and humans decide, what these assumptions are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 05:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dat5auF6l7mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370141 |
Am 15.11.2015 22:37, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > >> >> |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. >> |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, >> |medicine or in social sciences. >> >> Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics >> inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, >> assumptions are important in any science. > > |You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. > |Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. > |Only: these models are not reality. > |The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and > |the real food, they serve in a restaurant. > > Listen, don't tell me about models. It's my profession, and > I can see clearly it's not Yours. > As You don't know much of them, You don't know they are > assumptions based. It's common engineering, and humans > decide, what these assumptions are. Here I agree. But in this thread I have held the position, that I had an assumption, which I would like to discuss. You and others denied me this right, but wrote, a mathematical model is all what counts in physics. I think, the model is a certain description of a phenomenon observed in the real world. Essential is not the model, but to understand, how this phenomenon functions. This would also require to make unbiased observations, that are not designed to validate once certain view on the world. I may, nevertheless, have a bias towards 'Growing Earth', since minority positions may have 'blinders' and focus on their little subject. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b20efe10-dc7a-4b88-93c6-baec039bc3fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370174 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 05:45:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > > |You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. > > |Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. > > |Only: these models are not reality. > > |The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and > > |the real food, they serve in a restaurant. > > > > Listen, don't tell me about models. It's my profession, and > > I can see clearly it's not Yours. > > As You don't know much of them, You don't know they are > > assumptions based. It's common engineering, and humans > > decide, what these assumptions are. > > Here I agree. > > But in this thread I have held the position, that I had an assumption, > which I would like to discuss. You and others denied me this right, but > wrote, a mathematical model is all what counts in physics. I didn't. > > I think, the model is a certain description of a phenomenon observed in > the real world. I think You're right. > Essential is not the model, but to understand, how this > phenomenon functions. And here, I think, You're wrong. In normal case, it's a good approach, but physical phenomena don't have purposes, so they don't function at all. > This would also require to make unbiased observations, that are not > designed to validate once certain view on the world. "Unbiased" and "observations" are excluding each other. "Observation" is a process of converting raw info from senses into text - according to assumed earlier axioms. There is no other way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 21:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e58c265-1c87-4029-ae59-c8d9259c3f4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370140 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 15.11.2015 21:09, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net... > > > >> Experiments to the statement above. > >> Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made > >> by High Gurus. > >> > > > > |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. > > |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, > > |medicine or in social sciences. > > > > Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics > > inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, > > assumptions are important in any science. > > You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. > > Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. > Only: these models are not reality. > > The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and > the real food, they serve in a restaurant. > > 'Experiments' are more like what children do, when they play. These > little 'scientists' explore their environment usually by 'experiments' > (what happens, if I do this....?). > > After such experimental phase, the results are cast into a usable model > - for which mathematics is required. > > Another part is observation, like that of stars or other natural phenomena. > > To make observations or to plan an experiment, there are usually ideas > necessary. These ideas are essential and are not related to mathematics, > but stem from observation of a phenomenon and trying to find an > explanation. > > TH Certain universal notions are via definition. The universe, of things, for example, is "all that is any thing or things". In philosophy then you can confront whether it is a "pathological definition" or "inconsistent multiplicity" where the "domain principle" (that the universe exists) is a more or less fungible "idea". Then, for constructivist mathematics as follows propositional logic, for a plainly direct and constructivists mathematics (no "proofs by contradiction"), any qualitative models' exceptions to those as the ground rules (i.e. the Grundgezetsen) are again only mathematical and model-fitting, vis-à-vis, "un-mathematical", here in the "scientific". I recommend "Time, Chance, and Reduction" for a modern course in statistical mechanics, then for that the Standard Model is quite very sound. Mathematics is an establishment of causality, which is a usual given in logical models (and for that matter any deterministic physical models).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 23:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ca953be-c77b-48be-978d-372aa4be6106@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370176 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 06:11:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał: > The universe, of things, for example, is "all > that is any thing or things". Really? So, if your "parallel universes" exist, they are included inside your "universe", aren't they? > Mathematics is an establishment of causality, Mathematics? Causality? There is no such word in it. But I wonder, which mathematics you mean? Euclidean ? Noneuclidean? Both?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 23:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0ab3aa5-813c-492d-953b-1bb631f15557@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370185 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 06:11:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał: > > > The universe, of things, for example, is "all > > that is any thing or things". > > Really? So, if your "parallel universes" exist, > they are included inside your "universe", aren't > they? > In the Bohmian interpretation or from the Copenhagen conference, about MWI, I think there is not a reason that there is MWI, instead it is a singular Uni- verse, not just from definition but because there is nothing in physics that would make it otherwise. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation For example, one of the "any kind of multiverses" would be a singular universe. The rest are just room for thought, our concrete thoughts from and in this one. > > > Mathematics is an establishment of causality, > > Mathematics? Causality? > There is no such word in it. > But I wonder, which mathematics you mean? > Euclidean ? Noneuclidean? Both? If you review posts I wrote to sci.math and sci.logic you can get some idea of what I mean by "mathematics". In fact, you may even find definitions of what is a "mathematics" in terms of "theories of mathematics" and "foundations of math- ematics". You can find these posts on usenet Big8 text archives throughout the Internet and of sci.math and sci.logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 00:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51e96a2b-5263-4d51-8232-10b35493dc6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370187 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 08:40:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał: > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 06:11:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał: > > > > > The universe, of things, for example, is "all > > > that is any thing or things". > > > > Really? So, if your "parallel universes" exist, > > they are included inside your "universe", aren't > > they? > > > > In the Bohmian interpretation or from > the Copenhagen conference, about MWI, > I think there is not a reason that there > is MWI, instead it is a singular Uni- > verse, not just from definition but > because there is nothing in physics that > would make it otherwise. :)Isn't "from definition" enough for You? Seems You just want to avoid the question, whether Your set of terms allows this MWI mumble or makes it inconsistent at the very beginning. > > > Mathematics is an establishment of causality, > > > > Mathematics? Causality? > > There is no such word in it. > > But I wonder, which mathematics you mean? > > Euclidean ? Noneuclidean? Both? > > If you review posts I wrote > to sci.math and sci.logic > you can get some idea of > what I mean by "mathematics". If You can't answer a simple question above and explain, what on Earth made You think mathematics include causality relation somehow - I'm not interested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 04:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <davm93Fqj9tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370176 |
Am 16.11.2015 06:11, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson: > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 15.11.2015 21:09, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:das2u2Ft0quU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>>> Experiments to the statement above. >>>> Experiments shows, that in physics the decisions are made >>>> by High Gurus. >>>> >>> >>> |Experiments can be made in other realms than physics. >>> |We have in fact the possibility to conduct experiments in biology, >>> |medicine or in social sciences. >>> >>> Physics is most abstractional of them. It has a lot of mathematics >>> inside... and mathematics means axioms. Though, of course, >>> assumptions are important in any science. >> >> You cannot conduct experiments in mathematics. >> >> Mathematics is a tool, that physicists use, to make quantitative models. >> Only: these models are not reality. >> >> The relation between model and the real world is similar to a menu and >> the real food, they serve in a restaurant. >> >> 'Experiments' are more like what children do, when they play. These >> little 'scientists' explore their environment usually by 'experiments' >> (what happens, if I do this....?). >> >> After such experimental phase, the results are cast into a usable model >> - for which mathematics is required. >> >> Another part is observation, like that of stars or other natural phenomena. >> >> To make observations or to plan an experiment, there are usually ideas >> necessary. These ideas are essential and are not related to mathematics, >> but stem from observation of a phenomenon and trying to find an >> explanation. >> >> TH > > Certain universal notions are via definition. > > The universe, of things, for example, is "all > that is any thing or things". > > In philosophy then you can confront whether it > is a "pathological definition" or "inconsistent > multiplicity" where the "domain principle" (that > the universe exists) is a more or less fungible > "idea". 'Universe' is meant as synonym for 'space': everything we see in the night sky, somewhere remote, that are the stars and other celestial bodies. In sum all of these bodies and the surrounding space is the universe. But this universe is also the same thing, that relativity calls 'past light cone'. This is so, because 'seeing' requires light and light travels along the light-cone. In relativity-lingo this cone is defined as an angle to our own 'axis of time' of 45°. So: we cannot see the universe, but only a small fraction in a somehow distorted manner. Especially there is a delay with distance, hence we see events together, that did not happen at the same time. This is insofar no problem, if physicists would take the delay into account and that light is only a specific type of interaction. Well, would be, if they would, but apparently they don't. Instead Einstein invented a way to obscure this delay by making simultaneity 'relative' and postulating, that the speed of light is absolute. > Then, for constructivist mathematics as follows > propositional logic, for a plainly direct and > constructivists mathematics (no "proofs by > contradiction"), any qualitative models' > exceptions to those as the ground rules (i.e. > the Grundgezetsen) are again only mathematical > and model-fitting, vis-à-vis, "un-mathematical", > here in the "scientific". > > I recommend "Time, Chance, and Reduction" for > a modern course in statistical mechanics, then > for that the Standard Model is quite very sound. If matter is 'relative', than the standard model of qm must be wrong. This is so, because the standard model is based on the 'particle concept'. Particles are assumed to be created in an initial hot and fast 'big-bang'. BUT: if 'Growing Earth' would be true, than matter is created (what would include particles of any kind) constantly, much closer and less hot. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web