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 | 14 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 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 22:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wO6dnewzIcRPM9fLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #370272 |
On 11/16/15 11/16/15 9:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 'Universe' is meant as synonym for 'space': Not really. > 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. Not really. The universe includes objects we cannot see. > But this universe is also the same thing, that relativity calls 'past light cone'. No. Not even close. The past light cone is the VISIBLE universe, not the whole universe. > This is so, because 'seeing' requires light and light travels along the light-cone. Yes. That's why the past light cone is the VISIBLE universe. > In relativity-lingo this cone is defined as an angle to our own 'axis of time' > of 45°. When using suitable units such that c=1. > So: we cannot see the universe, but only a small fraction in a somehow distorted > manner. Yes to only a fraction, no to "distorted". But, of course, one must take into account how light propagates. > Especially there is a delay with distance, hence we see events together, > that did not happen at the same time. Yes. This is inherent. Though your "together" should be "simultaneously". > This is insofar no problem, if physicists would take the delay into account and > that light is only a specific type of interaction. Yes. Well known. > Well, would be, if they would, but apparently they don't. NONSENSE! Every physicist knows about the finite propagation speed of light and its effect on observations made with light. I have not a clue why you think this silliness. Apparently YOU do not know how to account for the delay, and thus presume that others do not, either. That's downright stupid. > Instead Einstein > invented a way to obscure this delay by making simultaneity 'relative' and > postulating, that the speed of light is absolute. MORE NONSENSE. The relativity of simultaneity does not "obscure" the delay; rather it is apparently the way the world works. > [... further nonsense and word salad] You REALLY need to learn to not project your own personal limitations onto others. There _ARE_ people in this world who are smarter than you. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 23:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c8a25a5d-1727-42c3-a009-13cabf458fcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370277 |
W dniu wtorek, 17 listopada 2015 05:36:36 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > MORE NONSENSE. The relativity of simultaneity does not "obscure" the delay; > rather it is apparently the way the world works. The only world working this way is the world imagined by a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db17p8F8699U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370277 |
Am 17.11.2015 05:36, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> 'Universe' is meant as synonym for 'space': > > Not really. > > >> 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. > > Not really. The universe includes objects we cannot see. > > >> But this universe is also the same thing, that relativity calls 'past >> light cone'. > > No. Not even close. > > The past light cone is the VISIBLE universe, not the whole universe. > > >> This is so, because 'seeing' requires light and light travels along >> the light-cone. > > Yes. That's why the past light cone is the VISIBLE universe. > > >> In relativity-lingo this cone is defined as an angle to our own 'axis >> of time' >> of 45°. > > When using suitable units such that c=1. I prefer: c= 45° C is an angle in spacetime, where velocities go from zero to infinity. Zero velocity is the angle of zero, infinite velocity is than 90°. The angle zero is stable in respect to the observer. This observer defines the 'axis of time'. Any observer does, just by being somewhere. This is his (personal) axis of stability, to which belongs his (personal) axis of time. This axis is 'co-moving' and what the observer sees, that is, what he calls 'universe'. Only: this axis is 'relative', since it is his personal view on the world. Other observer have other views, hence have different idea about time (and space). But more interesting is, that observers also could disagree about whether or not a certain thing is a material object (or not). To understand this, I should explain my concept about what matter actually is: This 'zero angle' is called 'timelike'. This is the ways, that matter behaves. Matter is (in my own model) a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime). The opposite direction to timelike is called 'spacelike', which is the realm, that you could reach only with infinite velocities. This is like being there without delay, since there is no time-interval for a space interval. This would be v=infinity. Now I assume a spectrum from zero (0°) to infinity (90°). (The middle is 45° or c. ) If such connections would exist, the timelike relation behaves like mass and the spacelike relation like a static field. After some contemplation you will find, this would be a good description of an atom. BUT this would mean: matter is kind of 'relative'. Also 'relative' is time and what we regard as universe. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-18 06:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db2he7Fi1jfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370304 |
Am 17.11.2015 18:51, schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am 17.11.2015 05:36, schrieb Tom Roberts: > >>> 'Universe' is meant as synonym for 'space': >> >> Not really. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> Not really. The universe includes objects we cannot see. >> >> >>> But this universe is also the same thing, that relativity calls 'past >>> light cone'. >> >> No. Not even close. >> >> The past light cone is the VISIBLE universe, not the whole universe. >> >> >>> This is so, because 'seeing' requires light and light travels along >>> the light-cone. >> >> Yes. That's why the past light cone is the VISIBLE universe. >> >> >>> In relativity-lingo this cone is defined as an angle to our own 'axis >>> of time' >>> of 45°. >> >> When using suitable units such that c=1. > > I prefer: c= 45° > > > C is an angle in spacetime, where velocities go from zero to infinity. > Zero velocity is the angle of zero, infinite velocity is than 90°. > > The angle zero is stable in respect to the observer. This observer > defines the 'axis of time'. Any observer does, just by being somewhere. > > This is his (personal) axis of stability, to which belongs his > (personal) axis of time. > > This axis is 'co-moving' and what the observer sees, that is, what he > calls 'universe'. > > Only: this axis is 'relative', since it is his personal view on the > world. Other observer have other views, hence have different idea about > time (and space). > > But more interesting is, that observers also could disagree about > whether or not a certain thing is a material object (or not). > > To understand this, I should explain my concept about what matter > actually is: > > This 'zero angle' is called 'timelike'. This is the ways, that matter > behaves. Matter is (in my own model) a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in > spacetime). My assumption is related to 'complex four-vectors' and 'Pauli algebra'. there exists a mathematical description made by Jonathan Scott: http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf So I assume, that the world we live in is actually a large fractal, that has build inside as 'structure'. And now I compare the features of complex numbers to the features of spacetime. And it looks quite similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram The idea is, that time is actually an 'imaginary movement' and the imaginary axis is, what is in Minkowski diagramm called 'timelike'. The real axis is than compared to the axis called 'spacelike'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 05:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db51n8F7e3kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370304 |
Am 17.11.2015 18:51, schrieb Thomas Heger: ... >>> In relativity-lingo this cone is defined as an angle to our own 'axis >>> of time' >>> of 45°. >> >> When using suitable units such that c=1. > > I prefer: c= 45° > > > C is an angle in spacetime, where velocities go from zero to infinity. > Zero velocity is the angle of zero, infinite velocity is than 90°. > > The angle zero is stable in respect to the observer. This observer > defines the 'axis of time'. Any observer does, just by being somewhere. > > This is his (personal) axis of stability, to which belongs his > (personal) axis of time. > > This axis is 'co-moving' and what the observer sees, that is, what he > calls 'universe'. > > Only: this axis is 'relative', since it is his personal view on the > world. Other observer have other views, hence have different idea about > time (and space). > > But more interesting is, that observers also could disagree about > whether or not a certain thing is a material object (or not). > > To understand this, I should explain my concept about what matter > actually is: > > This 'zero angle' is called 'timelike'. This is the ways, that matter > behaves. Matter is (in my own model) a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in > spacetime). > > The opposite direction to timelike is called 'spacelike', which is the > realm, that you could reach only with infinite velocities. > > This is like being there without delay, since there is no time-interval > for a space interval. This would be v=infinity. > > Now I assume a spectrum from zero (0°) to infinity (90°). (The middle is > 45° or c. ) > > If such connections would exist, the timelike relation behaves like mass > and the spacelike relation like a static field. > > After some contemplation you will find, this would be a good description > of an atom. > > BUT this would mean: matter is kind of 'relative'. > > Also 'relative' is time and what we regard as universe. > I would guess, that what I have written here sounds at least strange for most of the readers. But I have a (much) longer version here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 The method I have used here was to use drawings instead of equations. Such illustrations try to emulate spacetime in a certain way: since I cannot draw in four dimensions, I have to leave out one dimension and tell the reader, this would be a reduced representation. The drawing had to be 'multiplied by three'. So a sphere is represented by a circle and Euclidean space by a plane. Now I try to interpret known phenomena in a geometric form and tried to find an appropriate illustration. This is often difficult to understand, but there is also a verbal description. The mathematical description I have not yet developed, but link to similar descriptions from other sources. The interesting aspect of this approach is, that it uses only a few relatively simple assumptions (thou unusual ones). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2khp3$kvl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370401 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> The mathematical description I have not yet developed
Not only that, but your incoherent junk has nothing to say about
the physics of either general relativity or quantum theory. Such
factors explain the lack of interest by knowledgeable people.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 22:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db6ti0FmhibU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370409 |
Am 19.11.2015 14:11, schrieb shuba: >> The mathematical description I have not yet developed > > Not only that, but your incoherent junk has nothing to say about > the physics of either general relativity or quantum theory. Such > factors explain the lack of interest by knowledgeable people. > It was not my intention to write about GR or QM. I wanted to write about a connection between GR and QM. The idea was, that nature should be understood as 'undivided system', that functions on a few simple mechanisms. My aim was, to identify such mechanisms and link them to GR on one side and QM on the other. This is similar to 'string theory', which assumes such strings as fundamental entities. My concept is based on the idea to make particles out of spacetime (of GR). This would provide a link, since GR is about spacetime and QM about particles. To make this possible, I had to find a description, which would fit to both of these realms. I found one in a certain type of quaternions and a quaternion formula for rotation. This concept works actually quite good and it is only a little strange. So, I am quite convinced about the validity of this concept, even if you call it '.... incoherent junk...'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2lg27$62d$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370442 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > To make this possible, I had to find a description, which would fit to > both of these realms. I found one in a certain type of quaternions and a > quaternion formula for rotation. This thing already exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33227c6d-a470-41b1-91e8-69cd937caf5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370442 |
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.11.2015 14:11, schrieb shuba: > > >> The mathematical description I have not yet developed > > > > Not only that, but your incoherent junk has nothing to say about > > the physics of either general relativity or quantum theory. Such > > factors explain the lack of interest by knowledgeable people. > > > > It was not my intention to write about GR or QM. > > I wanted to write about a connection between GR and QM. > > The idea was, that nature should be understood as 'undivided system', > that functions on a few simple mechanisms. My aim was, to identify such > mechanisms and link them to GR on one side and QM on the other. > > This is similar to 'string theory', which assumes such strings as > fundamental entities. > > My concept is based on the idea to make particles out of spacetime (of > GR). This would provide a link, since GR is about spacetime and QM about > particles. That has been tried countless times by countless people. No such simple approach appears to work. > To make this possible, I had to find a description, which would fit to > both of these realms. I found one in a certain type of quaternions and a > quaternion formula for rotation. Quaternions have also been tried every which way and then some. You may want to look into Clifford algebras which generalise them. They can get quite deep (as in Bott periodicity) but they still didn't provide a good solution to the problem. Obviously some sort of "wavy aspect" and "spacetime curvature aspect" will remain as approximations in the fully general theory but it looks like something quite new is needed. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 04:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db7j36FrfnfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370447 |
Am 19.11.2015 23:21, schrieb JanPB: >>>> The mathematical description I have not yet developed >>> >>> Not only that, but your incoherent junk has nothing to say about >>> the physics of either general relativity or quantum theory. Such >>> factors explain the lack of interest by knowledgeable people. >>> >> >> It was not my intention to write about GR or QM. >> >> I wanted to write about a connection between GR and QM. >> >> The idea was, that nature should be understood as 'undivided system', >> that functions on a few simple mechanisms. My aim was, to identify such >> mechanisms and link them to GR on one side and QM on the other. >> >> This is similar to 'string theory', which assumes such strings as >> fundamental entities. >> >> My concept is based on the idea to make particles out of spacetime (of >> GR). This would provide a link, since GR is about spacetime and QM about >> particles. > > That has been tried countless times by countless people. No such simple > approach appears to work. No, as far as I know, the closest to mine was the approach of Heestenes. There were also Tom Bearden and a few others with similar ideas. >> To make this possible, I had to find a description, which would fit to >> both of these realms. I found one in a certain type of quaternions and a >> quaternion formula for rotation. > > Quaternions have also been tried every which way and then some. You may > want to look into Clifford algebras which generalise them. They can get > quite deep (as in Bott periodicity) but they still didn't provide a good > solution to the problem. I call these numbers 'quaternions', but corrects would be 'complex four vectors' or 'bi-quaternions'. Vectors are - in a way - too much linear and refer to the idea of a sum, while complex numbers and quaternions are connected by multiplication. The main idea is, that an atom is kind of 'standing rotation wave' and the core is similar to a knot. These bi-quaternions could be depicted as star-tetrahedron, where one tetrahedron points up and one down. And they spin. And since they are 'anti-symmetric', this cancels out, what leaves 'nothing'. But if they spin in an angle, they don't cancel out and things 'pop out of nowhere' (like actually our universe). Now you could imagine, this would swing back and forth (on a very tiny scale), we would get a massive core with a static shell: an atom. This sounds certainly strange, but I would like to express my opinion, this is apparently how nature works in real. I do not present a model, but attempt to describe a mechanism, which I assume, that nature utilises it - or actually is based upon. The mathematical description is a little tricky and only partially master by me. But I like the papers of Jonathan Scott, which are quite readable. So, for now, that's all I have. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2lita$h5f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370442 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> I wanted to write about a connection between GR and QM.
You failed. Unsurprising, since you haven't studied either one.
> This is similar to 'string theory'
It's amusing how much you are disconnected from reality.
> GR is about spacetime and QM about particles
Believe it or not, it's much more involved than that.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67720291-65fe-4be3-b9ba-4d826d7a77fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369909 |
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:02:45 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 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.) Yes indeed, and you have ZERO experimental evidence for your "assumption." > Since no such experiments have been made, we could search for (somehow) > similar experiments. You are dead wrong again. Mountains of evidence exist for E = mc^2 and for quantized particle creation. > 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/) No, those experiments do NOT support your "assumption": "These experiments are not reproducible" "Contrary to the opinion of the majority of physicists, the possibility of low energy transformation does not contradict the conservation laws" These quotes from the paper mean that it appears one species is transformed to different species. The energy of the discharge is suspected to be catalytic. After all, the mass equivalent of 50 kJ is only 5.5x10^-13 kg and the detected impurities were much, much greater than that. > 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. Philo Farnsworth did that over 50 years ago: http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/vassilatos.html And it WAS a nuclear reaction. But the cold fusion experiments of more recent years have a serious repeatability problem, and Lochak admits that his experiments do, too. > And this would be impossible, if the standard model is correct. > > > TH If the standard model is not correct, that does not mean that your speculation is: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." -- Isaac Asimov Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <346a35fb-cf43-4175-adc3-ee5ff49d74b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369580 |
On November 10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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: One of the biggest: "Anything that boggles my mind, can't be true." Which is closely tied to the difficulty of advanced mathematics. Apparently they believe that the laws of nature and reality are constrained by whatever is comprehensible to the human mind. It's almost essential human nature, with some small fraction of exceptions. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n22ifn$u9b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369728 |
On 11/11/2015 6:18 PM, RichD wrote: > On November 10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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: > > One of the biggest: "Anything that boggles my mind, can't be true." > Which is closely tied to the difficulty of advanced mathematics. > > Apparently they believe that the laws of nature and reality are > constrained by whatever is comprehensible to the human mind. Well, it IS comprehensible. Where the clash is, is with everyday experience and common sense. Common sense is tuned to everyday experience, but the latter is only a thin and pretty nonrepresentative slice of how nature really works. To fix this is easy: read up on how strange nature really is, embrace the surprise and deal with it, and then remap your common sense to what is really known beyond everyday experience. > > It's almost essential human nature, with some small fraction > of exceptions. > > -- > Rich > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web