Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 04:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:12 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-04 21:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-03 20:56 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 10:15 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-03 23:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 19:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 01:45 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-04 21:59 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 05:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-04 23:25 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 23:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 00:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 20:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 02:20 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-05 22:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:44 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 05:52 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 06:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:14 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-05 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 05:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-05 04:35 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 12:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 09:23 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 19:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 10:52 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-06 22:34 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 08:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 09:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 22:49 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 13:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 14:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-08 13:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:01 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 00:42 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:48 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 04:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:51 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 06:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:16 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 09:24 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 13:36 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 18:50 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 00:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-11 21:41 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 04:02 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 07:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-11 17:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:27 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-12 16:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 00:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 11:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 08:43 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 22:18 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 12:54 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-13 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 12:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 18:28 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-15 12:05 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 15:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:17 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 12:14 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-17 06:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 17:22 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:06 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:21 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:26 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:34 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 23:00 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-21 13:29 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-13 06:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 08:53 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 12:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:15 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:17 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:31 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 10:08 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 16:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:10 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 20:12 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-14 22:09 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 07:57 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 21:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:30 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 17:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 14:28 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-06 13:31 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:29 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:48 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:39 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-07 10:11 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs <solar@plexus.org> - 2016-02-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 14:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-08 09:12 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 09:16 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 11:24 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 23:02 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 04:43 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 17:20 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 23:05 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 18:58 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:32 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-10 22:55 +1100
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:13 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 00:04 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-04 06:58 -0800
Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 10:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity |
| Message-ID | <62e3b0e6-b556-4a74-abb3-011c916bf297@googlegroups.com> |
All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to the other). See the story starting at 8:34 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53). Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamesl51165@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c3f583de-2a08-470f-b07d-ce717781d118@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375419 |
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 10:24:35 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to the other). > > See the story starting at 8:34 in this video: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg > "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" > > At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53). > > Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. > > Pentcho Valev Space might not contract but... rate slowdown for the atom is real by the strength of gravity in dimension and movement in dimension. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shan <shan@enterapps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8r6jm$1keb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375423 |
jamesl51165 wrote: >> Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no >> disintegration. >> Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the underlying premise, >> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. >> >> Pentcho Valev > > Space might not contract but... > rate slowdown for the atom is real by the strength of gravity in > dimension and movement in dimension. Mitchell Raemsch They are putting industrial residues in your food, for instance iron fillings in your cereals. Throwing waste into the rivers is just an unprofitable waste of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a28dd66-e98d-4ef7-984b-a0014d070aad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375419 |
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 10:24:35 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd Your posts are absurd. How much time do you spend every day fishing out those links? When you listen to the music of Philip Glass, do you set the player to the "repeat" mode? :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shan <shan@enterapps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8r7jj$1mic$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375430 |
JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 10:24:35 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: >> All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light >> postulate are absurd > > Your posts are absurd. How much time do you spend every day fishing out > those links? When you listen to the music of Philip Glass, do you set > the player to the "repeat" mode? :-) the foundations of modern calculus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1AylsZpkFk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 00:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de355b83-39dd-4527-b3c1-4e804e0eb3e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375419 |
It follows from Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers (as seen from the quotations below, some Einsteinians teach that the trapped objects are physically compressed while others insist that there is no compression at all): http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w "How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?" http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity", see what happens at 7:12 It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - they even teach that length contraction is a geometrical projection, not a physical event: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/8CsHfE9FxRs/xTVWGUcNRpYJ Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself." Yet Lawrence Krauss seems to disagree with Tom Roberts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQTNoNZ3_PY Lawrence Krauss demonstrates real length contraction Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 22:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhe5asFtqgeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375419 |
On 3/02/2016 5:24 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light > postulate are absurd (according to sane people) but Einsteinians > would admit absurdity only if the theory is shown to predicts that > two observers see incompatible events occurring at the same location > (e.g. if the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is squashed according to > one observer and alive and kicking according to the other). > > See the story starting at 8:34 in this video: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg "Einstein's Relativistic > Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity" > > At 9:01 Sarah sees the train falling through the hole without any > disintegration. In contrast, in order for Adam to see the train > falling through the hole, the train must disintegrate first (9:53). > > Adam does see disintegration of the train; Sarah sees no > disintegration. Conclusion: Length contraction is absurd and the > underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light > postulate, is false. If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dhe9srFebnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375452 |
On 3/02/2016 10:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > Sylvia. I note, BTW, that the video itself eventually explains this. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 04:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65c6ea50-904f-45fd-8da8-7154d670ac2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375452 |
W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. So said a bunch of Gurus! Must be the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 05:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a70c826b-c9cb-4dfb-9f4c-c97a9428de68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375460 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > So said a bunch of Gurus! > Must be the truth. I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with respect to his stationary self. Now since special relativity is really about how spacetime standards relate in describing physics according to inertial frame observers instead, as long as you don't have accelerated observers, any observer can decide he's the one who is stationary observing the others to be in motion with respect to himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 06:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b0fc322-c74e-466e-abdf-5971efcdb8b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375462 |
W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 12:07:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > If the doors close simultaneously in Sarah's frame, then they don't in > > > Adam's frame. Both Sarah and Adam agree that the trains gets through > > > unscathed. How often does this paradox nonsense have to be debunked? > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > Must be the truth. > > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with respect to his stationary self. Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest sees trees running around! Relativistic moron said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. Well, I know you're not a rationally thinking person, so this will probably still be over your head, but brain, even brain of such a moron, is complicated thing and real observer can perform really complicated processes with it. "Seeing" or "observing" or "finding" are amongst them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 06:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea1db4ee-26cf-4c44-bf39-5a7e906517f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375466 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:25:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > > Must be the truth. > > > > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably > > still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth > > spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for > > example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with > > respect to his stationary self. > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. This actually Galileo's concept, but I'm glad the babbling baboon finally embraces the correct concept. Actually, YOU are always at rest, whether you're "moving" or not. Your pathetic sophist baloney is a sorry attempt to obfuscate the issue with a sad straw man argument. [Remainder of your stupid baloney snipped so as not to spread your mentally- aberrant and abhorrent insanity]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 19:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8tgtt$9kf$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375467 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ea1db4ee-26cf-4c44-bf39-5a7e906517f5@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:25:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > > Must be the truth. > > > > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably > > still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth > > spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for > > example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with > > respect to his stationary self. > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. |This actually Galileo's concept, Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 11:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375483 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 11:29:19 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ea1db4ee-26cf-4c44-bf39-5a7e906517f5@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:25:44 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 14:10:43 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > And if Adam is going through a forest, from his own point of view > > > > he observes he is immobile and trees are running around him. > > > > So said a bunch of Gurus! > > > > Must be the truth. > > > > > > I know you're not a rational thinking person, so this will probably > > > still be over your head, but for example believe it or not, the earth > > > spins, so a person held stationary over the surface of the earth for > > > example will indeed find the trees to be the things in motion with > > > respect to his stationary self. > > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? What a bobblehead that makes you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 20:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8tkjt$dj6$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375495 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com... > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his point of view Earth is immobile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3bf0c0b1-eb78-478e-bb21-ac13509d83a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375496 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. > > |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain > |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the > |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear > that from his point of view Earth is immobile. Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of wretched lies. "God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He created historians." -- Anonymous Particularly the moronic liars like Wozniak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shan <shan@enterapps.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8u17e$160$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375509 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... >> If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his >> point of view Earth is immobile. > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > wretched lies. Can you prove the earth is moving, no. It would imply a stationary spacetime or an aether with crustal structure. Such things does not exists, hence you may safely consider that everything else is moving around the earth, since it exactly how it looks like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e96a4884-b300-4740-9ed7-a3a04f38d64d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375510 |
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:07:32 PM UTC-7, shan wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Moron Wozniak wrote: > > > > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his > > > point of view Earth is immobile. > > > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > > wretched lies. > > Can you prove the earth is moving, no. Sure, it's moving relative to the sun, relative to the moon, relative to just about everything in the universe. Do you wish to deny it? > It would imply a stationary spacetime or an aether with crustal structure. Nope. > Such things does not exists, hence you may safely consider that everything > else is moving around the earth, since it exactly how it looks like. What something "looks like" is usually a very naïve viewpoint. That is true for inertial motion. And for rotational motion, that clearly demonstrates that the earth is NOT stationary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <973c39b4-c9ce-4a8f-8a70-f100f0066d55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375512 |
W dniu czwartek, 4 lutego 2016 03:21:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:07:32 PM UTC-7, shan wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > Moron Wozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > > > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear that from his > > > > point of view Earth is immobile. > > > > > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > > > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > > > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > > > wretched lies. > > > > Can you prove the earth is moving, no. > > Sure, it's moving relative to the sun, relative to the moon, relative to > just about everything in the universe. Do you wish to deny it? But, unfortunately, it was not moving relative to Galileo, so, according to the moronic rules he invented, he should support the pope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d8e5c51e-dda0-4bc8-9673-9fd52d6ea20e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375509 |
W dniu środa, 3 lutego 2016 23:16:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:3d7e969e-8739-420a-8100-27bde778c09a@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Yeah, sure! Any person going through a forest > > > > sees trees running around! Relativistic moron > > > > said, relativistic moron believes, must be truth. > > > > > > |This actually Galileo's concept, > > > > > > Yet it moves - Galileo didn't believe it himself. > > > > |Everyone knows you are the same babbling baboon so why do you maintain > > |this fiction that there are two of you? Now you come along and make the > > |dishonest claim that Galileo didn't believe his own thoughts? > > > > Of course he didn't. And yet it moves... > > If he truly follow the shit he invented, he would swear > > that from his point of view Earth is immobile. > > Every time you post your stupidity, you prove once again that you don't > understand physics. It was the POPE that claimed the earth didn't move, > you stupefied moron. Galileo claimed it DID move, you collection of > wretched lies. Yes, Galileo did. And if he truly followed the rules he invented, he wouldn't. According to your Shit, Galileo should observe and claim, that Earth is immobile. You know, in real world observers differ. And their claims differ. Galileo's theory of observers and their claims matches only a part of them. Those like the pope, not those like Copernicus or Galileo himself. But these are the things too complicatted for your tiny brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web