Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376518 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 18:44 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:59 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 10:15 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 12:23 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 03:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 05:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 22:03 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-19 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:01 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 19:56 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:45 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:02 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:53 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 10:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:43 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:49 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 20:13 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:27 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-02-27 15:08 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:04 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kunz <gx@fp.cdfy.7h> - 2016-02-19 13:08 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-21 14:20 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-07 20:44 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:24 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 17:13 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:44 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:38 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 14:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-20 07:49 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 09:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:28 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:18 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:11 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 11:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-23 15:27 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-23 23:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:14 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:34 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:54 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 22:36 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:27 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 08:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 04:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 18:17 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:43 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 11:26 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 16:10 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 07:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 12:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 13:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:21 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:51 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 20:07 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:31 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-27 12:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 22:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-28 09:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:18 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 16:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:41 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 15:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 12:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 13:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 13:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 08:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 11:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 16:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 12:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 00:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:42 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:30 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:31 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:34 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:35 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 16:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-07 12:05 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 19:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:29 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 16:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 22:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:39 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 03:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 05:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 05:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 23:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:14 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-22 13:47 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-23 23:07 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 11:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f7ff899-137c-4ab6-8060-78cbd9efb769@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377102 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: > > YOu are wrong Witzeg. Gary does not understand Relativity. He just choose > to go along with mainstream and believe in Relativity. To understand > Relativity he needs Tensors, a domain which admittedly is not part of his > luggage. He is an actor, a something they can always use in capitalist > Relativity. So, I got your woozy attention. Did I hurt your widdle feelings? Then stop acting like an asinine moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nank60$gff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377117 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: >> >> YOu are wrong Witzeg. Gary does not understand Relativity. He just >> choose to go along with mainstream and believe in Relativity. To >> understand Relativity he needs Tensors, a domain which admittedly is not >> part of his luggage. He is an actor, a something they can always use in >> capitalist Relativity. > > So, I got your woozy attention. Did I hurt your widdle feelings? Then > stop acting like an asinine moron. How can you be so stupid, Gary. Not a question. Can you say anything other apart from immature insults, Gary? As for instance, Physics and Relativity related. Is your real name Gary?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd4156f6-0d19-4b8a-8509-ff883bb69d98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377099 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:17:12 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:9232c186-d149-4315-8cdd-22238e6f345f@googlegroups.com... > > |Baloney. Why don't you take the next rocket to orbit, open the airlock > |and see if you can breathe, moron. Find out that your asinine "abstract > |space" is very real. > > ANY of your gurus can tell you space is abstract, and your > Shit even neglect it. Nobody cares what a fool like you believes, nymrod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e76a2894-77f6-43a3-9cbe-5a62fe668110@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376966 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 22:07:16 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > It was the _Compton effect_, _not_ relativity > (contrary to the usual anti-Einstein gobbledygook on this newsgroup(*)) (1923, > so 7 years after GR) which made scientists accept Einstein fully and made > them also accept his model for the photoelectric effect. The Campton effect is more simpler: Raman soved it, and using directly the classical waves theory, of course... long ago. > He got the Nobel for it too, not for relativity. Indeed... he was a very poor man - he needed some fresh cash. :) > (*)One would think people who hate Einstein so much (because with them it's > always personal, of course, it's never - God forbid! - about science) would > at least do some research to dig up any "dirt". An ineffective shot: I very love... these all animals! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 11:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj4bmiFq7a9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376961 |
On 24/02/2016 7:21 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 05:28:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 22/02/2016 4:07 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: >>>> On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>>>> Simply: the light is a wave, >>>> >>>> But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern >>>> experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> The light is a wave, and without any doubt; >>> pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. >> >> And the photoelectric effect? >> >> Sylvia. > > The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. Really? There are some odd effects. a) Light below a certain frequency does not cause the emission of electrons from a surface regardless of how intense the illumination. b) Above a certain frequency, some electrons are emitted, regardless of how weak the illumination. c) Where the light is of a frequency sufficient to cause the emission of electrons, there is no lower limit on the period of illumination before the first electron is detected. So how does classical wave mechanics address these? Sylvia. > > BTW: it's very complicated.. mathematicaly, > therefore the simplified form is known and promoted only: > the einsteinian corpuscular surogate.. > additionaly the SR-fallacy is compatible > with corpuscular model of light only, thus there is no way... in fact. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e841350-5bb5-4b1c-b1b3-c64f5d364c23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376986 |
W dniu środa, 24 lutego 2016 01:27:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. > > Really? Much better - perfectly! > There are some odd effects. Odd is the photon falacy. > a) Light below a certain frequency does not cause the emission of > electrons from a surface regardless of how intense the illumination. it's a consequence of the resonance conditions - normal thing in the waves regime. > b) Above a certain frequency, some electrons are emitted, regardless of > how weak the illumination. the same > c) Where the light is of a frequency sufficient to cause the emission of > electrons, there is no lower limit on the period of illumination before > the first electron is detected. wrong supposition: such 'lower time limit' of irradiation exists in fact!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 16:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj7gllFjp9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377058 |
On 25/02/2016 6:40 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 24 lutego 2016 01:27:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>> The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. >> >> Really? > > Much better - perfectly! > >> There are some odd effects. > > Odd is the photon falacy. > >> a) Light below a certain frequency does not cause the emission of >> electrons from a surface regardless of how intense the illumination. > > it's a consequence of the resonance conditions - normal thing in the waves regime. > > >> b) Above a certain frequency, some electrons are emitted, regardless of >> how weak the illumination. > > the same > >> c) Where the light is of a frequency sufficient to cause the emission of >> electrons, there is no lower limit on the period of illumination before >> the first electron is detected. > > wrong supposition: such 'lower time limit' of irradiation exists in fact! > > Any cites? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 07:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <18efa786-f094-4d90-851a-e87f30faeb60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377076 |
W dniu czwartek, 25 lutego 2016 06:10:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 25/02/2016 6:40 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 24 lutego 2016 01:27:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >>> The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. > >> > >> Really? > > > > Much better - perfectly! > > > >> There are some odd effects. > > > > Odd is the photon falacy. > > > >> a) Light below a certain frequency does not cause the emission of > >> electrons from a surface regardless of how intense the illumination. > > > > it's a consequence of the resonance conditions - normal thing in the waves regime. > > > > > >> b) Above a certain frequency, some electrons are emitted, regardless of > >> how weak the illumination. > > > > the same > > > >> c) Where the light is of a frequency sufficient to cause the emission of > >> electrons, there is no lower limit on the period of illumination before > >> the first electron is detected. > > > > wrong supposition: such 'lower time limit' of irradiation exists in fact! > > > > > Any cites? > > Sylvia. You can use wikipedia, because it is just standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect "The time lag between the incidence of radiation and the emission of a photoelectron is very small, less than 10−9 second." and the next sentence: "The direction of distribution of emitted electrons peaks in the direction of polarization (the direction of the electric field) of the incident light, if it is linearly polarized" So, you see: it's a wave effect, because corpuscule cant be polarized in any way...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cf8cd03-8f1c-44b6-9107-53aa1578e86d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377092 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:37:41 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > You can use wikipedia, because it is just standard. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > > "The time lag between the incidence of radiation and the emission of a > photoelectron is very small, less than 10-9 second." > > and the next sentence: > > "The direction of distribution of emitted electrons peaks in the direction > of polarization (the direction of the electric field) of the incident light, > if it is linearly polarized" > > So, you see: it's a wave effect, because corpuscule cant be polarized in > any way... Which is refuted by another sentence in the very same subheading that you quoted from: "For a given metal, there exists a certain minimum frequency of incident radiation below which no photoelectrons are emitted." So, you see, light has properties of BOT waves and particle. If you were honest, you would have to say that light is something other than simple waves or simple "corpuscles." But you are NOT honest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54d354ae-2a0f-4fc0-bd4e-529357f6acf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377096 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:37:41 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > You can use wikipedia, because it is just standard. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > > > > "The time lag between the incidence of radiation and the emission of a > > photoelectron is very small, less than 10-9 second." > > > > and the next sentence: > > > > "The direction of distribution of emitted electrons peaks in the direction > > of polarization (the direction of the electric field) of the incident light, > > if it is linearly polarized" > > > > So, you see: it's a wave effect, because corpuscule cant be polarized in > > any way... > > Which is refuted by another sentence in the very same subheading that you > quoted from: > > "For a given metal, there exists a certain minimum frequency of incident > radiation below which no photoelectrons are emitted." > > So, you see, light has properties of BOT waves and particle. If you were > honest, you would have to say that light is something other than simple > waves or simple "corpuscles." But you are NOT honest. Wouldn't a photon with "too low a frequency" hitting a ferromagnetic material induce a circular magnetic flux in the ferromagnetic material at the point of impact, causing the electron to Not eject? heating the entire ferromagnetic target material through magnetic induction of electric current ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21ba9849-b1aa-44a5-9080-6f25a9671b9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377096 |
W dniu czwartek, 25 lutego 2016 17:01:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > So, you see: it's a wave effect, because corpuscule cant be polarized in > > any way... > > Which is refuted by another sentence in the very same subheading that you > quoted from: > > "For a given metal, there exists a certain minimum frequency of incident > radiation below which no photoelectrons are emitted." it's obvious in the waves domain... the limit must exist due to the resonance condition. > So, you see, light has properties of BOT waves and particle. If you were > honest, you would have to say that light is something other than simple > waves or simple "corpuscles." But you are NOT honest. Advanced imbeciles always create very fantastic theories. For example: the fire is a demon, the Sun is a god, etc. Stupid people must believe in such nonsenses... they have no choice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <22c555d0-7727-47e5-987c-77677f3d61a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377122 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 12:11:44 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 25 lutego 2016 17:01:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > So, you see: it's a wave effect, because corpuscule cant be polarized in > > > any way... > > > > Which is refuted by another sentence in the very same subheading that you > > quoted from: > > > > "For a given metal, there exists a certain minimum frequency of incident > > radiation below which no photoelectrons are emitted." > > it's obvious in the waves domain... > the limit must exist due to the resonance condition. What "resonance condition"? Why not "konstantynopolitanczykowianeczka condition"? What's the difference between the two? Until you either justify it or provide a reference, it's just a word salad. > > So, you see, light has properties of BOT waves and particle. If you were > > honest, you would have to say that light is something other than simple > > waves or simple "corpuscles." But you are NOT honest. > > Advanced imbeciles always create very fantastic theories. > For example: the fire is a demon, the Sun is a god, etc. > > Stupid people must believe in such nonsenses... they have no choice. Irrelevant. Either answer the question or admit you are wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 13:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bfc68eb1-8fdb-4ffa-a7b8-cf3d8b15bb46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377126 |
Why isn't aether confirmed?
Easy: Because there is no aether.
Also, SR proved there is no aether.
As Tom said above, if you can prove or give evidence or give real reasons there is an aether, you have quite a career in physics ahead of you.
And contrary to all this nonsense of an insurmountable bias for Einstein stuff, lots of physicists would be very interested if someone could show how it's wrong and that something else - like an aether - is a better explanation of the physical world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nanr8h$251$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377129 |
Użytkownik "Jon Price" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:bfc68eb1-8fdb-4ffa-a7b8-cf3d8b15bb46@googlegroups.com... |Why isn't aether confirmed? | Easy: Because there is no aether. Still, "logic" used by relativistic morons to "confirm" The Shit can be used to confirm ether as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 15:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nant06$10h8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377129 |
On 2/25/2016 3:15 PM, Jon Price wrote: > Why isn't aether confirmed? > Easy: Because there is no aether. > > Also, SR proved there is no aether. > > As Tom said above, if you can prove or give evidence or give real reasons > there is an aether, you have quite a career in physics ahead of you. > > And contrary to all this nonsense of an insurmountable bias for Einstein > stuff, lots of physicists would be very interested if someone could show > how it's wrong and that something else - like an aether - is a better > explanation of the physical world. > While your basic statements are probably right, from what I've read, there are better ways to say it. First, there is no experimental evidence that points uniquely to an aether. This however, does not prove that there is no aether, only that we don't have much *experimental* reason to believe in one. Second, SR did not prove there was no aether. What it showed is that you can explain experimental results *without* requiring an aether. It is entirely possible to come up with a theory that explains the same results but with an aether (and in fact, Lorentz aether theory is an example of this), but given two theories that explain the same results, it's commonly better to choose the one that has fewer essential players in it. Third, to demonstrate the existence of an aether would require the experimental observation of an outcome predicted by an aether theory that is *not* predicted by SR. So far, I'm not aware of any viable aether theories that make such a prediction, let alone one verified by experiment. Fourth, it is common here to propose aether theories as being "more natural" or "more sensible" or "more appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions", but none of these are objective criteria that scientists would use to sort out one theory from another. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 20:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <z7mdnULiqKDnLlLLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377135 |
On 2/25/16 2/25/16 3:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > First, there is no experimental evidence that points uniquely to an aether. This > however, does not prove that there is no aether, only that we don't have much > *experimental* reason to believe in one. Yes. But it's stronger than you say: we don't have ANY experimental reason to think there is any sort of aether. > Second, SR did not prove there was no aether. What it showed is that you can > explain experimental results *without* requiring an aether. It is entirely > possible to come up with a theory that explains the same results but with an > aether (and in fact, Lorentz aether theory is an example of this), but given two > theories that explain the same results, it's commonly better to choose the one > that has fewer essential players in it. Yes. Do not think that Einstein's second postulate is an "essential player" in SR. It was important historically, but modern derivations of SR have no need of it (replacing it with basic experimental observations). > Third, to demonstrate the existence of an aether would require the experimental > observation of an outcome predicted by an aether theory that is *not* predicted > by SR. So far, I'm not aware of any viable aether theories that make such a > prediction, let alone one verified by experiment. Yes. It is EXTREMELY difficult to construct an aether theory that is a) not already refuted by existing experiments, and b) different from SR [#]. So difficult that to date nobody has proposed any such theory that is not experimentally indistinguishable from SR. The known theories that are indistinguishable from SR will never be accepted by the physics community, because a) except for LET they are very artificial, and b) they do not obey the symmetry principles that have become foundations of theoretical physics. [#] if one considers a power-series expansion in v/c, then experiments constrain any theory to agree with SR up to the sixth power of v/c. But theories are NOT power series, so this means one must find some analytical function that agrees with SR up to the 6th power, but differs in the 8th power (or higher). It seems unlikely that any reasonable function can do that; then one must then perform an experiment that is sensitive to (v/c)^8, which is also daunting. > Fourth, it is common here to propose aether theories as being "more natural" or > "more sensible" or "more appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions", > but none of these are objective criteria that scientists would use to sort out > one theory from another. There _ARE_ objective criteria to prefer SR over all the other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it, but they are quite different from what you mention: symmetries. SR is unique among these theories in that it obeys Lorentz invariance, and that invariance has proven to be indispensable in discovering other theories. People who think aether theories are "more natural" or "more sensible" or "more appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions" than SR simply do not understand the ACTUAL issues involved. They merely display their personal ignorance of modern theoretical physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 18:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37734f2b-3a6e-44e1-98af-7b3fb7c222da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377149 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:07:56 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > we don't have ANY experimental reason to think there is any sort > of aether. Electrodynamics is the first. The null results of the MMX is the second. The Doppler shift of CMBR is the third. Peter did not recognize Christ 3 times. Tom is breaking that record. <shrug> > Do not think that Einstein's second postulate is an "essential > player" in SR. It was important historically, but modern > derivations of SR have no need of it (replacing it with basic > experimental observations). The null results of the MMX spawns an infinite models of transforms that demand the very existence of the Aether. Among them, the Lorentz transform was fudged out of Larmor's transform. <shrug> > is EXTREMELY difficult to construct an aether theory that is a) not > already refuted by existing experiments, Name which experiment that has invalidated the Voigt or Larmor's transform. <shrug> > and b) different from SR [#]. These are all Aether models. <shrug> > So difficult that to date nobody has proposed any such theory that is not > experimentally indistinguishable from SR. These models only diverge from the Lorentz transform at high observer speeds which represent technology not yet achievable by the current condition. <shrug> > People who think aether theories are "more natural" or "more sensible" or "more > appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions" than SR simply do not > understand the ACTUAL issues involved. They merely display their personal > ignorance of modern theoretical physics. The Lorentz transform was fudged. Other than the Galilean transform, to this day, there is not one hypothesis that supports the principle of relativity without self-contradictions in internal mathematics. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 20:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa9ad4fd-64c5-4878-9a93-de817609923b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377150 |
Is the graviton the force carrier of time, like the photon is the force carrier of em?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3579b9e1-1dcd-4dd6-af0c-6efb245148b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377149 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 03:07:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Yes. It is EXTREMELY difficult to construct an aether theory that is a) not > already refuted by existing experiments, and b) different from SR [#]. So > difficult that to date nobody has proposed any such theory that is not > experimentally indistinguishable from SR. LET is not. LET predicts corrections of clocks. LET is confirmed, The Shit is refuted. > There _ARE_ objective criteria to prefer SR over all the other theories that are > experimentally indistinguishable from it, Yeah. The SYMMETRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately, nobody sane cares about your moronic symmetry, as you can check at GPS. > People who think aether theories are "more natural" or "more sensible" or "more > appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions" than SR simply do not > understand the ACTUAL issues involved. They merely display their personal > ignorance of modern theoretical physics. Oppositely. People who think The Shit is "more natural" or "more sensible" or anything than ether theories simply do not understand the ACTUAL issues involved. They merely display their personal ignorance in the subject of building models of reality. Check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 09:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74e7ba04-eba2-4c34-8b9b-a762d96b25c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377149 |
W dniu piątek, 26 lutego 2016 03:07:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Yes. It is EXTREMELY difficult to construct an aether theory that is a) not > already refuted by existing experiments, and b) different from SR [#]. So > difficult that to date nobody has proposed any such theory that is not > experimentally indistinguishable from SR. The known theories that are > indistinguishable from SR will never be accepted by the physics community, > because a) except for LET they are very artificial, and b) they do not obey the > symmetry principles that have become foundations of theoretical physics. > > [#] if one considers a power-series expansion in v/c, then > experiments constrain any theory to agree with SR up to the > sixth power of v/c. But theories are NOT power series, so > this means one must find some analytical function that agrees > with SR up to the 6th power, but differs in the 8th power (or > higher). It seems unlikely that any reasonable function can > do that; then one must then perform an experiment that is > sensitive to (v/c)^8, which is also daunting. > > > > Fourth, it is common here to propose aether theories as being "more natural" or > > "more sensible" or "more appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions", > > but none of these are objective criteria that scientists would use to sort out > > one theory from another. > > There _ARE_ objective criteria to prefer SR over all the other theories that are > experimentally indistinguishable from it, but they are quite different from what > you mention: symmetries. SR is unique among these theories in that it obeys > Lorentz invariance, and that invariance has proven to be indispensable in > discovering other theories. > > People who think aether theories are "more natural" or "more sensible" or "more > appealing" or "more consistent with classical notions" than SR simply do not > understand the ACTUAL issues involved. They merely display their personal > ignorance of modern theoretical physics. > > > Tom Roberts SR is a model only, ie. it's a simplified version of a theory, on which it's based: the LET. And therefore the SR fails in any nonstarionary/nonlocal conditions, for example the flyby anomalies, and many other cases. But LET is consistent with any data, because it's a classical theory, not any subset - simplification, nor improvisation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web