Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:37 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:47 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:32 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:15 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 15:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 11:36 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 18:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 03:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:01 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 00:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 20:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 04:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 12:23 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:38 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:22 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:36 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:47 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 21:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:31 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:11 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:28 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:06 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:47 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 19:23 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-18 20:05 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:14 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:48 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 01:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:34 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:48 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:24 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-21 01:45 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 20:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:59 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 03:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:01 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:46 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 21:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:56 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 08:03 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:21 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 22:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 05:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 17:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:26 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 01:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 19:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 05:28 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:00 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Subject | The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. |
| Message-ID | <nbkoli$jjc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
If a conspiracy is to be mounted against an individual or group, its name must be continually associated with things bad. To favourably promote a name, it should be associated anything good. Conspiracies have been very common throughout history, not only in the political arena but also in civilian matters such as 'framing' a person...or spreading a rumour that a woman a witch or an innocent man a wife beater or a rapist. Probably the second most successful conspiracy of all time has been the promotion of the commo hippy Jesus Christ as being the son of some kind of imaginary 'god' thing. How could any kid not believe the story when it is written and stated so often and pictures and statues of the poor bugger strung up on a cross are as common as plastic bottles on the roadside...Women even dangle them from their necks, where every man looks. Surely the story must be true, with all that 'evidence'! -:) The promotion of Adolph Hitler was achieved through a massive and evil conspiracy. The Vietnam war was started by a US fabrication of facts...as was the recent destruction of Iraq. Associating kings, queens, various criminals, tax dodgers, corrupt officials and even demented US presidents with charitable organizations has also been very effective in giving people a clean image. However the promotion of the name Albert Einstein as the world's symbol of genius surpasses all other conspiracies by a long shot since it has fooled so many people who are undoubtedly a lot smarter than the man himself. Over the coming months, I will be discussing instances of the way in which name Einstein has been deviously linked to a long of important scientific issues. Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession of Mercury. For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In reality, nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkr2t$nfi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378199 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > If a conspiracy is to be mounted against an individual or group, its > name must be continually associated with things bad. To favourably > promote a name, it should be associated anything good. Conspiracies have > been very common throughout history, not only in the political arena but > also in civilian matters such as 'framing' a person...or spreading a > rumour that a woman a witch or an innocent man a wife beater or a > rapist. Probably the second most successful conspiracy of all time has > been the promotion of the commo hippy Jesus Christ as being the son of > some kind of imaginary 'god' thing. How could any kid not believe the > story when it is written and stated so often and pictures and statues of > the poor bugger strung up on a cross are as common as plastic bottles on > the roadside...Women even dangle them from their necks, where every man > looks. Surely the story must be true, with all that 'evidence'! - You loose the point, Anrry. To understand that thing you have to start from the very beginning, and work your way up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <I_udnb_4XMtYb0DLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378199 |
On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In reality, > nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple > reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never > constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in > somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession > and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn1bt$19g8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378213 |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:29:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In >> reality, >> nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple >> reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never >> constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in >> somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession >> and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. > > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession has no fixed value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <L8SdnTStNfJklELLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378283 |
On 3/8/16 11:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession > has no fixed value. > > Ralph, you best look up the data for the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbo1ba$rak$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378284 |
On 09/03/16 04:20, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/8/16 11:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> >> There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession >> has no fixed value. >> >> > > Ralph, you best look up the data for the precession of perihelion in > Mercury's orbit. > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Bullshit....pure bullshit.. There is no fixed value for the precession of Mercury....so how could any theory predict one? > Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is > in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too > of physics. > > Tests of general relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > > Tests of special relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is believable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a88ba80-4082-41e4-8549-933c34b20450@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378323 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:21:35 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > Bullshit....pure bullshit.. There is no fixed value for the precession > of Mercury....so how could any theory predict one? > .... > ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > believable. The idiot speaks, nobody cares.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 14:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbo6d4$1190$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378328 |
On 09/03/16 14:37, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:21:35 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >> >> Bullshit....pure bullshit.. There is no fixed value for the precession >> of Mercury....so how could any theory predict one? >> .... >> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >> believable. > > The idiot speaks, nobody cares. then why do you bother to do it.... ...and don't forget to check under your bed for those atheists....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 04:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4afe3b87-73fb-4675-81c6-f61021e6e829@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378329 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:47:54 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 09/03/16 14:37, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:21:35 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Bullshit....pure bullshit.. There is no fixed value for the precession > > > of Mercury....so how could any theory predict one? > > > .... > > > ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > > > believable. > > > > The idiot speaks, nobody cares. > > then why do you bother to do it.... Just injecting a bit of honesty in your duplicitous maunderings. > ...and don't forget to check under your bed for those atheists.... Are you saying there are no such thing as atheists? It has been said that there are no atheists in foxholes. Well, I wouldn't know, but there is one place where there will be no atheists :-) But HONEST atheists don't exist right now because there IS evidence that some part of us exists after death. Take for example, the experiments of Dr. Duncan McDougall that people claim resulted in a weight loss on death of 21 grams (actually, it looks to me that the average value was about half that, but the sigma still made the lowest probability greater than zero). That means that the probability of the existence of a "soul" is twice as much as the probability that there is none. Of course, evidence of a soul isn't evidence of a God, but it does open up consideration. And then there are the investigations of Dr. Raymond Moody and many others who have interviewed those who have had near-death experiences: http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Investigation-Phenomenon-Survival-Bodily/dp/0062517392 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real I had an atheist friend who claimed that atheists must do an extensive, comprehensive STUDY before they can become an atheist. The problem with this is that it is impossible to KNOW that one has done a sufficient study, and I think that most so-called atheists have not made a comprehensive study. And what we have learned about the universe since that time expands the field of study immensely. All we have are our assumptions. I have mine and you have yours. As a scientist, however, I must continually test my assumptions against what is known about the universe. First, before we can even converse about God, we have to understand what we mean by that: what is our definition of God? Again, I have my definition and you have yours. The God you claim doesn't exist may not have any bearing on "my" God's existence. From McDougall's data, it would be wrong to categorically reject the concept of a soul. An honest person would at least say more study is needed. From near-death experiences, doubt must soften atheistic claims. And then there is the ridiculous claim that atheists know what God is. They put the little tin god that they invented in a little tin box and pretend that they have disproven God's existence. This is a dishonest straw-man argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbptb7$1mun$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378363 |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:36:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: ....the ultimate crap. You have now been plonked. Time is too valuable to be wasted on religious pedophiles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpto1$1mmk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378400 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:36:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > ....the ultimate crap. > > You have now been plonked. Time is too valuable to be wasted on > religious pedophiles. Come on, you seems affected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 14:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e88fc455-149b-4a19-a72b-795cb7af39c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378400 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:36:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > [The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth > You have now been plonked. Time is too valuable to be wasted on > religious pedophiles. So "Henry" the immoral, lying atheist refuses to respond to truth, preferring to lie and hurl personal attacks. This is HIS brand of "morality" and "honesty" :-)) He has no honor, no morality and no rationality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c8udnSnlg60hP0LLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378323 |
On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: > ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > believable. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpt7d$1mun$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378332 |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: >> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >> believable. > > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > > Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in > agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of > physics. > > Tests of general relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > > Tests of special relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkv86tFf1b9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378399 |
On 10/03/2016 6:23 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: >>> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >>> believable. >> >> >> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no >> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity >> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. >> >> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in >> agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of >> physics. >> >> Tests of general relativity >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity >> >> Tests of special relativity >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles > > Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy... > I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncell8$1kk2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379307 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the >> conspiracy... > > I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the > mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. Sylvia. MIT Engineer disputes Relativity Theory Collapse-Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41fb96aa-cbda-4696-9880-bf933a01f6f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379307 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:29:20 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 10/03/2016 6:23 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > >> On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > >>> believable. > >> > >> > >> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > >> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > >> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > >> > >> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in > >> agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of > >> physics. > >> > >> Tests of general relativity > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > >> > >> Tests of special relativity > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles > > > > Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy... > > > > I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the > mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. > > Sylvia. A couple of articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=2 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424/full -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 11:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dl10spFtho1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #379388 |
On 18/03/2016 9:56 AM, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:29:20 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 10/03/2016 6:23 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >>>>> believable. >>>> >>>> >>>> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no >>>> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity >>>> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. >>>> >>>> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in >>>> agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of >>>> physics. >>>> >>>> Tests of general relativity >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity >>>> >>>> Tests of special relativity >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity >>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles >>> >>> Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy... >>> >> >> I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the >> mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. >> >> Sylvia. > > A couple of articles: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=2 > > http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424/full > > -- > Jan > Though I find it hard to believe that that could be the explanation for Henry's beliefs, which are, after all, about some corner of physics that has no practical effect on people's lives. Unlike bombings, other disasters and the death of Princess Diana, the reaction of the vast majority of people to relativity is one of complete indifference. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6206ddb9-61a2-4874-a173-33eb8200abb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379394 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 5:36:45 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/03/2016 9:56 AM, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:29:20 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 10/03/2016 6:23 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > >>>>> believable. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > >>>> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > >>>> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > >>>> > >>>> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in > >>>> agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of > >>>> physics. > >>>> > >>>> Tests of general relativity > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > >>>> > >>>> Tests of special relativity > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > >>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles > >>> > >>> Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy... > >>> > >> > >> I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the > >> mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > A couple of articles: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=2 > > > > http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424/full > > > > -- > > Jan > > > Though I find it hard to believe that that could be the explanation for > Henry's beliefs, which are, after all, about some corner of physics that > has no practical effect on people's lives. Unlike bombings, other > disasters and the death of Princess Diana, the reaction of the vast > majority of people to relativity is one of complete indifference. Actually, relativity (and Einstein) are rather unique among physical theories in its popularity among "conspirators". OTOH QED (and Feynman) are left completely alone. Has anyone ever seen a crank dissecting the fine points of the Feynman propagator lines? BZZZZT! -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkusfuFc98iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378283 |
On 9/03/2016 4:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:29:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In >>> reality, >>> nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple >>> reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never >>> constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in >>> somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession >>> and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. >> >> >> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no >> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity >> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > > There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession > has no fixed value. > Orbits are chaotic in the very long term, but in the short term, the effects of the other planets can be taken into account. When that's done, Mercury's orbit still doesn't match theory unless general relativity is taken into account. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web