Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-04 09:32 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-12 04:45 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-04 09:32 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 19:09 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 04:01 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:33 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 19:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 05:29 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 07:13 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 08:37 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 09:09 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:17 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 06:41 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:09 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 21:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:41 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:28 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-09 08:15 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:57 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 12:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-09 21:36 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 12:56 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-09 23:30 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:50 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 07:02 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 18:42 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:20 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 20:28 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:41 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 21:08 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:15 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-06 11:42 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-06 23:11 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 17:08 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 10:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 20:03 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 21:37 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 14:58 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 23:35 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 03:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 04:12 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:03 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 18:40 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:19 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 05:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:02 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 06:07 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-07 10:09 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 19:05 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:11 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 17:10 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-08 01:48 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 20:00 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:19 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:33 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 18:46 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 18:58 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:33 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:55 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-12 11:17 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 19:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 20:44 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 05:23 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:46 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:16 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 19:30 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-12 03:08 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 20:49 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 03:06 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:20 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 02:09 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:48 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 07:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:00 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-21 09:18 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-20 16:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-06 22:16 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 23:35 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 03:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:07 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:30 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 20:05 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:20 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:58 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 12:32 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-12 16:15 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:59 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:07 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:21 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-29 00:36 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:04 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 23:40 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:27 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:36 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:46 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:44 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:52 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:54 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:20 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:56 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:49 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-02 10:19 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 06:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:30 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 08:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 11:02 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-29 14:35 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-01 14:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 14:57 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 06:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:55 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-03 22:56 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:54 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 19:13 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 20:49 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 13:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 06:50 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:29 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 04:57 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:46 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:07 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-05 23:02 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 13:19 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-06 23:28 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:39 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-06 23:57 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 07:40 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-07-05 21:44 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 06:04 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-10 09:03 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 07:13 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:52 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 19:01 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 20:55 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:51 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:51 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:21 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:46 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:09 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:01 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 07:17 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:21 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:48 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:03 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 19:56 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 19:26 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kkhrapko@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 09:57 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kkhrapko@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 10:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:04 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 08:21 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:30 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Neil <Neil@inethub.org> - 2016-06-14 00:12 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-15 05:32 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 12:58 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-08 12:25 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 04:45 +1000
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b81ef526-0bf7-4603-a764-10f8f73f9a70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385544 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 3:37:06 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6110690a-33ff-414f-9d65-2b436da7e9ee@googlegroups.com... > > |The formula f = f_p * √( (1-v)/(1+v) ) is deduced by SR. There is nothing > circular in that deduction. > |We then *measure* the incoming frequency f only. We then solve for v. > Nothing circular in that. If I tell you to solve for x in the math formula y > = 4x² - 2, you get x = ± √( (y+2)/4 ). There is nothing circular in that, > right? > > Yes, you are right. > I'm looking for attention, so I will talk about circles. The > circles (there are some of them) are quite subtle and no surprise. > Most obvious: how do you measure frequency and where did you learn to > measure frequency? Frequencies are measured by clocks. My clock indicates T1 as it receives a pulse. My clock then indicates T2 as it receives the next pulse. The difference T2 - T1 is the period. The reciprocal of that is the received frequency. Didn't you know that? Yes, frequencies can be measured via a different method, but thats irrelevant to the discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 22:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <njck0e$doc$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385546 |
Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b81ef526-0bf7-4603-a764-10f8f73f9a70@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 3:37:06 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6110690a-33ff-414f-9d65-2b436da7e9ee@googlegroups.com... > > |The formula f = f_p * √( (1-v)/(1+v) ) is deduced by SR. There is nothing > circular in that deduction. > |We then *measure* the incoming frequency f only. We then solve for v. > Nothing circular in that. If I tell you to solve for x in the math formula > y > = 4x² - 2, you get x = ± √( (y+2)/4 ). There is nothing circular in that, > right? > > Yes, you are right. > I'm looking for attention, so I will talk about circles. The > circles (there are some of them) are quite subtle and no surprise. > Most obvious: how do you measure frequency and where did you learn to > measure frequency? |Frequencies are measured by clocks. Brilliant, as for a poor idiot. Now, more precisely, maybe? What is a clock, how it's prepared, where did you learn to measure frequency and where did you learn to prepare a clock. And for potential other readers - this lying shit is even more impudent, than a standard relativistic moron, so it's fabricating not only non existing facts, but also quotings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868ad83d-56a6-424c-b968-4aaeace23997@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385549 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 4:36:31 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > |Frequencies are measured by clocks. > > Brilliant, Of course I am. > Now, more precisely, maybe? Are you asking this because you dont know? This is basic stuff that you should know before coming into this NG. So I suggest you read up on what is a "clock" in physics. As a hint, the NIST/BIMP define what is to be accepted as a "clock". But their reasons are many...read up on the physics and the philosophies. > What is a clock, how it's prepared, See my comment just above. > where did you learn to measure frequency and where > did you learn to prepare a clock. Me, I invented it it on my own. Then when I got to know of the standards bureaus, I noticed that my operational definitions were the same as theirs. > And for potential other readers - this lying shit is fabricating > not only non existing facts, but there is no proof of time dilation. > It is all non verifiable fabrications of the Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10ef480f-4c2b-4d6d-a1cd-e6421d4207be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385550 |
W dniu czwartek, 9 czerwca 2016 22:48:57 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > |Frequencies are measured by clocks. > > where did you learn to measure frequency and where > > did you learn to prepare a clock. > > Me, I invented it it on my own. And - when you were inventing your brilliant ways to measure frequency and prepare clocks, were you aware of brilliat discoveries of The Shit or not? > > And for potential other readers - this lying shit is fabricating > > not only non existing facts, but there is no proof of time dilation. > > It is all non verifiable fabrications of the Shit. Though "my" quote is fabricated again, i can sign it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 14:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njch9o$te5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385543 |
On 6/9/2016 2:17 PM, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 9:28:36 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>> fab = f_p * √( (1-v_ab)/(1+v_ab) ) and >>> fba = f_p * √( (1-v_ba)/(1+v_ba) ) >>> >>> Since f_p are the same and fab & fba are empirically >>> identical, this implies that v_ab = v_ba. >> >> But in order to get fab and fba you had to assume vab and vba.... >> this is circular argument. > > The formula f = f_p * √( (1-v)/(1+v) ) is deduced by SR. There is nothing circular in that deduction. > > We then *measure* the incoming frequency f only. We then solve for v. Nothing circular in that. If I > tell you to solve for x in the math formula y = 4x² - 2, you get x = ± √( (y+2)/4 ). There is nothing > circular in that, right? > >> Your original claim was that they measured vab=vba zillions of time. > > Correct. The *measurement procedure* requires to measure f AND to solve for v. Those two steps define > the measurement procedure for v. > > Ken, from the formula f = f_p * √( (1-v)/(1+v) ), can you isolate v to express it as a function of f? > v = v(f) = what? Give the answer here and I will explain further its significance. > I'm sure I remember Henry Wilson saying that in an equation, the variable on the left is always the dependent variable and the variable on the right is always the independent variable, and you only can deduce the number on the left-hand side by knowing the variables on the right-hand side and never vice versa. Maybe Ken Seto is thinking of that post. BTW, I asked Henry what is the independent variable in PV=nRT, and then there was a couple of days of spluttering. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f1a1587-517b-4d24-aeb3-84015e9c4ca0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385545 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 3:50:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > I'm sure I remember Henry Wilson saying that in an equation, the > variable on the left is always the dependent variable and the variable > on the right is always the independent variable, and you only can deduce > the number on the left-hand side by knowing the variables on the > right-hand side and never vice versa. Maybe Ken Seto is thinking of that > post. Maybe. Its more likely that ken is thinking about what & how that little brown stuff on his finger. > BTW, I asked Henry what is the independent variable in PV=nRT, LOL. Yup, that would stump Wilson (and ken).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 07:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njhu9i$148f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385545 |
On 10/06/16 05:50, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/9/2016 2:17 PM, rotchm wrote: >> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> Correct. The *measurement procedure* requires to measure f AND to >> solve for v. Those two steps define >> the measurement procedure for v. >> >> Ken, from the formula f = f_p * √( (1-v)/(1+v) ), can you isolate v to >> express it as a function of f? >> v = v(f) = what? Give the answer here and I will explain further its >> significance. >> > > I'm sure I remember Henry Wilson saying that in an equation, the > variable on the left is always the dependent variable and the variable > on the right is always the independent variable, and you only can deduce > the number on the left-hand side by knowing the variables on the > right-hand side and never vice versa. Maybe Ken Seto is thinking of that > post. > > BTW, I asked Henry what is the independent variable in PV=nRT, and then > there was a couple of days of spluttering. In Mathematics, there are 'identities' and there are 'equations'. PV=RT is an identity. Note R is the dependent quantity, in this case a constant. R=PV/T is the correct form of the equation just as is a = F/m rather than F = ma. The same applies to the electrical equation I= V/R. The passage of a current through a resistor will create a voltage drop...but the current only flows because of the voltage. The form V = RI is physically wrong because causality is a factor but mathematically acceptable. A voltage can exist without a current but a current will not exists without a voltage ...or some other factor as in the case of 'ball lightning'. R does not create pressure or temperature, I does not create a voltage and nor does 'a' create a force or mass. The frequency of light is an inferred quantity defines as f=(c+v)/Lambda. It words, that means 'wave detection rate', where v is the speed of the detector relative to the source. In physics, nobody has measured the 'frequency' of monochromatic light.. Plenty of people have measured the frequency of a generated radio wave and have found that frequency to be linearly dependent on the arrival speed of the wave, (c+v). So-called 'frequency combs' actually detect the beat frequencies of two waves of the same speed. If you look into the way it is done, you will find that it assumes a wave speed of c and in fact compares wavelengths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj6tir$k11$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385235 |
Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:abd29b5b-459f-45d9-86d9-4d5bbd44d265@googlegroups.com... |Ken, this is not what actual exp's show. You are denying reality again. |Such radars/Doppler tests are regularly done between pairs of satellites (clocks). In all instances, it is concluded that pairwise, they measure each others speed to be the same. This is an empirical fact. Measurement result depends on measurement procedure. Should be obvious even for such a moron. But it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1cbee77-1853-4633-846d-d8e9c006a015@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385246 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 12:43:09 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:abd29b5b-459f-45d9-86d9-4d5bbd44d265@googlegroups.com... > > |Ken, this is not what actual exp's show. You are denying reality again. > |Such radars/Doppler tests are regularly done between pairs of satellites > (clocks). In all instances, it is concluded that pairwise, they measure each > others speed to be the same. This is an empirical fact. > > Measurement result depends on measurement procedure. Should > be obvious even for such a moron. > But it isn't. So illustrate us about how you would measure the speed of light without that limitation. By the way, the speed of light has been measured by several different procedures, for centuries, with results always being close to 300000 km/sec, which you assert are dependent on the measurement procedure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj73ov$pt8$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385264 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:c1cbee77-1853-4633-846d-d8e9c006a015@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 12:43:09 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:abd29b5b-459f-45d9-86d9-4d5bbd44d265@googlegroups.com... > > |Ken, this is not what actual exp's show. You are denying reality again. > |Such radars/Doppler tests are regularly done between pairs of satellites > (clocks). In all instances, it is concluded that pairwise, they measure > each > others speed to be the same. This is an empirical fact. > > Measurement result depends on measurement procedure. Should > be obvious even for such a moron. > But it isn't. |So illustrate us about how you would measure the speed of light without that limitation. Without what limitation, poor idiot? |By the way, the speed of light has been measured by several different procedures, for centuries, |with results always being close to 300000 km/sec, which you assert are dependent on the |measurement procedure. Suppose you want a result 400000. Are you really too stupid to make a procedure giving you this result?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b94c2c8-327a-4a99-b755-f973d0cbf485@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385266 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:28:49 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:c1cbee77-1853-4633-846d-d8e9c006a015@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 12:43:09 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:abd29b5b-459f-45d9-86d9-4d5bbd44d265@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Ken, this is not what actual exp's show. You are denying reality again. > > |Such radars/Doppler tests are regularly done between pairs of satellites > > (clocks). In all instances, it is concluded that pairwise, they measure > > each > > others speed to be the same. This is an empirical fact. > > > > Measurement result depends on measurement procedure. Should > > be obvious even for such a moron. > > But it isn't. > > |So illustrate us about how you would measure the speed of light without > that limitation. > > Without what limitation, poor idiot? > > |By the way, the speed of light has been measured by several different > procedures, for centuries, > |with results always being close to 300000 km/sec, which you assert are > dependent on the > |measurement procedure. > > Suppose you want a result 400000. Are you really too > stupid to make a procedure giving you this result? It is obvious you have never ever performed a measurement, farting and shitting troll. When, in you poor English, you write "Measurement result depends on measurement procedure", how do you apply that assertion to the measurement of light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 21:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj763d$s8c$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385269 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:9b94c2c8-327a-4a99-b755-f973d0cbf485@googlegroups.com... > Without what limitation, poor idiot? > > |By the way, the speed of light has been measured by several different > procedures, for centuries, > |with results always being close to 300000 km/sec, which you assert are > dependent on the > |measurement procedure. > > Suppose you want a result 400000. Are you really too > stupid to make a procedure giving you this result? |It is obvious you have never ever performed a measurement, farting and shitting troll. It's as obvious, as experimental confirmation of th moronic Shit of Great Guru. |When, in you poor English, you write "Measurement result depends on measurement procedure", how do you apply that assertion to the measurement of light? Speaking about poor English - youR poor English. Very, very simply. For instance, I can either measure time with your idiotic unsynchronizing clocks, or with clocks apropriately corrected to indicate t'=t, like those on GPS. And depending on my choice, result will differ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e17b72b-c951-450f-b386-d63cf53a25b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385038 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:25:02 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 05/06/16 04:33, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 12:01:04 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > >>> If they are both inertial and there is no significant gravitational field, > >>> they can measure each others speed by Doppler radar. If they're not > >>> inertial, but are under constant acceleration, they will have to make > >>> subsequent measurements to determine the acceleration factor. > >> > >> will they both measure each other's speed to be the same? > > > > Since you haven't done your homework yet in setting up a proper problem, > > there are a multitude of possible answers. Are you being deceptive or > > are you REALLY this stupid? > > I didn't expect a sensible answer from a dingleberry. So know it or not, you just admitted that you're such a complete moron that you didn't understand a word I just said. Yes, in the true sense of the term Herbert Dingle the father of you anti relativity cranks, you are a dingleberry and are too stupid to realize what the term refers to even when it is completely explained to you in simple terms. Damn you're slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <drfdg2F5pi8U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #384937 |
On 4/06/2016 9:32 AM, HGW wrote: > Observers A and B are equipped with identical clocks and measuring rods > while together. > Through circumstance, they eventually find themselves moving past each > other. If A measures B's speed to be v, what speed will B attribute to > A? How will those speeds be measured? Under what theoretical framework? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 11:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nj2kdm$1oot$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #384949 |
On 04/06/16 17:15, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/06/2016 9:32 AM, HGW wrote: >> Observers A and B are equipped with identical clocks and measuring rods >> while together. >> Through circumstance, they eventually find themselves moving past each >> other. If A measures B's speed to be v, what speed will B attribute to >> A? How will those speeds be measured? > > Under what theoretical framework? If you think that matters, please explain. Movement is inertial, of course. The question is, if A measures B's speed to be v, is there any reason why B should not measure A's speed to also be v...as is usually assumed. You and Harnagel seem to believe there might be reasons. An alternative question might be, "if A moves at v in B's frame, what is B's speed in A's frame?". Newton would say 'v'...and I cannot recall any article that says it is not v...even Einstein's. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 23:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <drlb43Fc1n7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385086 |
On 6/06/2016 11:42 AM, HGW wrote: > On 04/06/16 17:15, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/06/2016 9:32 AM, HGW wrote: >>> Observers A and B are equipped with identical clocks and measuring rods >>> while together. >>> Through circumstance, they eventually find themselves moving past each >>> other. If A measures B's speed to be v, what speed will B attribute to >>> A? How will those speeds be measured? >> >> Under what theoretical framework? > > If you think that matters, please explain. Movement is inertial, of course. Previous postings suggest that you don't believe that general relativity is correct. Could one conceive of a universe in which general relativity is wrong, and where the speeds would not be measured to be equal and opposite? Yes, certainly one could. Is our universe such a universe? I don't think so, because I believe that general relativity is correct at macroscopic scales. But if general relativity is wrong, as you apparently believe, then all bets are off. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 17:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj43l3$no3$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385100 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:drlb43Fc1n7U1@mid.individual.net... |Could one conceive of a universe in which general relativity is wrong, |and where the speeds would not be measured to be equal and opposite? |Yes, certainly one could. |Is our universe such a universe? I don't think so, because I believe |that general relativity is correct at macroscopic scales. Result of measurement depends on measurement procedure. Should be obvious even for a physicist. But somehow it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1db4740f-4b62-499c-ad96-9bc42a508cc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385110 |
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:drlb43Fc1n7U1@mid.individual.net... > > > > Could one conceive of a universe in which general relativity is wrong, > > and where the speeds would not be measured to be equal and opposite? > > Yes, certainly one could. > > Is our universe such a universe? I don't think so, because I believe > > that general relativity is correct at macroscopic scales. > > Result of measurement depends on measurement procedure. > Should be obvious even for a physicist. But somehow it isn't. You are mistaken: physicists know this. And your implication that they don't is dishonest baloney and does not in the smallest amount support your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 20:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj4duk$122$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385137 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1db4740f-4b62-499c-ad96-9bc42a508cc9@googlegroups.com... On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:drlb43Fc1n7U1@mid.individual.net... > > > > Could one conceive of a universe in which general relativity is wrong, > > and where the speeds would not be measured to be equal and opposite? > > Yes, certainly one could. > > Is our universe such a universe? I don't think so, because I believe > > that general relativity is correct at macroscopic scales. > > Result of measurement depends on measurement procedure. > Should be obvious even for a physicist. But somehow it isn't. |You are mistaken: physicists know this. No, they're too stupid. They think their measurements are some kind of The Voice telling them the Essence of the Universe from high above. To notice they're a simple consequence of their own assumptions they would have to think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <362d1926-d765-4fee-92d7-ccc80049321d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385139 |
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 12:04:06 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1db4740f-4b62-499c-ad96-9bc42a508cc9@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:08:21 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Result of measurement depends on measurement procedure. > > > Should be obvious even for a physicist. But somehow it isn't. > > > You are mistaken: physicists know this. > > No, they're too stupid. YOU are the stupid one, and you prove it with every post. > They think their measurements are some kind of The Voice telling them > the Essence of the Universe from high above. This is just more of your baloney. Actually, you are the one spewing nonsense while believing you have some kind of magic knowledge fountain. > To notice they're a simple consequence of their > own assumptions they would have to think. Not true at all. You are a miserable, cankered soul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web