Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700
Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:29 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 04:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 19:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:06 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 02:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 07:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 21:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 03:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 13:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-14 18:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-16 12:25 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-16 06:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 15:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 19:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:39 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 12:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 08:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-22 13:45 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 04:16 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot back to what he does best: shit eating "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqia87$nj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391505 |
On 04/09/16 13:20, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.09.2016 23:52, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>> So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million >>> years and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction >>> the sea-floor which is younger than a certain age. >>> >>> This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >>> >>> >>> Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph >>> Hilgenberg. He glued maps on balls of different size: >>> >>> http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html >> >> As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density >> of all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find >> evidence that this is happening or have reason to believe that it >> always has happened and will continue to do so, then you could be >> confident that the Earth really is expanding. >> >> However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as >> its core cools. >> > I wanted to express the assumption, that matter is created in > real-time within the Earth, what makes the mass of the Earth grow. How is matter created? Are you claiming that radiation converts into matter? But that radiation originates from the annihilation of matter. > So I was looking for evidence, that matter is actually created > without nuclear reactions and relatively close. > > Inner Earth is actually a good choice, since matter from space cannot > enter into the Earth, only fields and neutrinos can.m the > annihilation of matter. > > If now matter bubbles out of the Earth' interior, this would render > the particle concept wrong. > > So matter is not composed from distinct entities called particles, > but should be understood as undivided structures. > > And 'Growing Earth' would prove this, hence I tried to prove 'Growing > Earth'. No, I don't think you are on a winner here... > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e361ffFhtn2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391533 |
Am 05.09.2016 01:20, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>>> So we could go backwards in time for - say- two hundred million >>>> years and estimate the size of the former Earth by subtraction >>>> the sea-floor which is younger than a certain age. >>>> >>>> This is actually, what Neal Adams has done in his animations: >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ >>>> >>>> >>>> Another way was used by the German geologist Ott Christoph >>>> Hilgenberg. He glued maps on balls of different size: >>>> >>>> http://www.expansiontectonics.com/page8.html >>> >>> As I pointed out, if the Earth is growing, then the average density >>> of all but its atmosphere must be decreasing. If you can find >>> evidence that this is happening or have reason to believe that it >>> always has happened and will continue to do so, then you could be >>> confident that the Earth really is expanding. >>> >>> However, I think it is probably more likely to be contracting as >>> its core cools. >>> >> I wanted to express the assumption, that matter is created in >> real-time within the Earth, what makes the mass of the Earth grow. > > How is matter created? > Are you claiming that radiation converts into matter? > But that radiation originates from the annihilation of matter. Good example is the photoelectric effect. I use a certain way to depict relativity in the fashion of Herman Minkowski. The idea is base on a certain spacetime diagram, where the light-cone is actually a cone. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png A tiny circle on the hyperplane of the present around the zero-point represents a static sphere. A VERY small circle shall represent the shell of an atom. If the axis of time tilts, the circle kind of 'rolls away' in the form of a helical screw. Such screws are actually photons, which move away from the zero-point along the light-cone. The time reverted situation would turn photons into electrons. This is happening, when light hits a conductive barrier. So slowed down light gets mass, while accelerated matter turn to radiation. But the shell of an atom has also a core, since - according to my model- the atom is 'one thing'. Atoms are certain structures, which could be described as 'standing rotation waves'. The aspect of potential are the electrons and the point of return in the middle is the nucleaus. But the atom is actually build from nothing. Atoms are similar to patterns or structures. The building blocks are not particles, but the points, which build spacetime. So matter is actually nothing, hence could be created or annihilated. What is conserved that is angular momentum and matter cannot be annihilated, unless something else takes the 'twist waves' of angular momentum. But if you provide spin, you could actually create matter out of nothing. You only need something spinning around Earth, to create matter within. This could be the so called Birkeland currents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current These currents carry up to one million amps. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqkuns$sq6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391578 |
On 06/09/16 06:04, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.09.2016 01:20, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >> How is matter created? Are you claiming that radiation converts >> into matter? But that radiation originates from the annihilation of >> matter. > > > Good example is the photoelectric effect. > > I use a certain way to depict relativity in the fashion of Herman > Minkowski. > > The idea is base on a certain spacetime diagram, where the light-cone > is actually a cone. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png > Monkowski's spcetime is nonsense. Light does not move at c. It moves relatively at a wide range of speeds. > A tiny circle on the hyperplane of the present around the zero-point > represents a static sphere. > > A VERY small circle shall represent the shell of an atom. > > If the axis of time tilts, the circle kind of 'rolls away' in the > form of a helical screw. > > Such screws are actually photons, which move away from the zero-point > along the light-cone. > > The time reverted situation would turn photons into electrons. This > is happening, when light hits a conductive barrier. > > So slowed down light gets mass, while accelerated matter turn to > radiation. Not according to BaTh. The radiation comes from the accelerating field and not the matter being accelerated. > > So matter is actually nothing, hence could be created or > annihilated. Matter an energy are obviously inter-related. > What is conserved that is angular momentum and matter cannot be > annihilated, unless something else takes the 'twist waves' of angular > momentum. > > But if you provide spin, you could actually create matter out of > nothing. > > You only need something spinning around Earth, to create matter > within. > > This could be the so called Birkeland currents: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current > > These currents carry up to one million amps. No I think you are getting carried away... What physics needs more than anything else right now is a physical theory about 'what fields are made of'. Because we cannot directly SEE fields, we tend to think they just exist as though from magic. For instance, if we could find a way to make a magnetic field visible, we could learn a lot more about it. What makes the space between the ends of two bar magnets different from ordinary space. Something very important is happening in that space but because it does not directly stimulate any of our senses, we assume there is 'nothing' there. This shows how primitively ignorant even our scientists are. I think there are other dimensions about which we currently know nothing. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3c44130-bd78-4cb6-bc57-7838a24e31ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391581 |
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Light does not move at c. It moves > relatively at a wide range of speeds. Reference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e371npFooinU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391587 |
Am 06.09.2016 05:34, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com:
>> Light does not move at c. It moves
>> relatively at a wide range of speeds.
>
> Reference?
In a Minkowski diagram velocity is an angle between the axis of time and
the path of something.
Light cones have the angle of 45°, which stands for c.
I compare the Minkowski diagram with an Argand diagram, since I assume,
that nature behaves on a fundamental level similar to complex numbers.
The axis of time is the real axis (the Argand diagram is turned by 90°)
and the hyperplane of the present is the imaginary axis. The hyperplane
has actually three imaginary dimensions (i, j, k)
The light-cone is than the cone in the direction, where imaginary space
units and real time units add in similar proportions.
This is also kind of asymptote, hence the direction, where the
interrelations reach far into space. This we call 'light'.
But anything could be called light, if we turn the axis of time into
another direction.
Matter could also be interpreted as 'wrapped up light', if we lay the
axis of time upon the light cone and move the hyperplane of the present
together with the former light beam.
In this case the former observer appears to be light ('unwrapped light').
This is a little counter-intuitive, but seems to be, how nature
functions and means, that what is light for one observer could be a
material object for another.
IOW: matter is 'relative'.
'Relative' means: depending on the specific point of view of an
arbitrary observer.
Since observers are material objects, they introduce their own axis of
stability as axis of time. Usually they claim, this is the only time
possible, since it is the only time possible for them.
But relativity says, this is not the case and timelines pointing into
spatial directions are in fact also possible.
The light-cone is also, what we see, hence denotes the physical realm we
call 'universe'.
So also the universe is 'relative' and to any timeline belongs its own
universe.
This is quite an unusual concept, but would follow from the same idea.
So: light is a subset of all possible interconnections between separated
entities, which fulfil certain criteria.
These criteria are:
- is massless
- moves with c
- along the light cone
These criteria are 'relative' and create the subset of all the possible
influences we call 'light'. And that light moves with c.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqn53g$dbo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391587 |
On 06/09/16 13:34, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Light does not move at c. It moves >> relatively at a wide range of speeds. > > Reference? The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e38menF6keoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391644 |
Am 06.09.2016 21:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >>> Light does not move at c. It moves >>> relatively at a wide range of speeds. >> >> Reference? > > The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story. > > I would agree, if 'aether' is something like 'thin, invisible something, which fills all space'. I have a slightly different idea: I use a 'relativistic aether', which I call 'spacetime'. So spacetime is something and the stuff we know and call 'material objects' are timelike stable structures within this 'aether'. The unstable structures we call 'radiation'. Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of an observer in respect to this something, this something can be radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqqkm3$1gks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391651 |
On 07/09/16 06:15, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 06.09.2016 21:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > >>>> Light does not move at c. It moves >>>> relatively at a wide range of speeds. >>> >>> Reference? >> >> The 'aether' on which SR is based does not exist. End of story. >> >> > > I would agree, if 'aether' is something like 'thin, invisible something, > which fills all space'. > > I have a slightly different idea: I use a 'relativistic aether', which I > call 'spacetime'. > > So spacetime is something and the stuff we know and call 'material > objects' are timelike stable structures within this 'aether'. That is a gross oversimplification of whatever point you are trying to make. > The unstable structures we call 'radiation'. I think your 'aether' is actually made of 'radiation'....and its density varies widely. Fields are 'aether'. > Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of > an observer in respect to this something, this something can be > radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. No that's silly. > TH --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3dvn9FebiuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391741 |
Am 08.09.2016 05:07, schrieb HGW.: >> Since stability is 'relative and depends on the position and velocity of >> an observer in respect to this something, this something can be >> radiation (e.g. light) in one FoR and matter in another. > > No that's silly. > Well, maybe.. But it was not the question, if my idea is silly, but whether or not nature functions on a fundamental level according to these principles. I personally assume, that my idea is correct. Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution for the question, what causes fields. If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call 'time'. TH In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqspia$135i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391810 |
On 09/09/16 06:24, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.09.2016 05:07, schrieb HGW.: > I personally assume, that my idea is correct. > > Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. > > I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. > > If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the > intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution > for the question, what causes fields. > > If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for > gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? Spacetime is not responsible for gravity. It doesn't tell us anything about gravity. > My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is > what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). > > These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of > spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how > quaternions are multiplied. > > This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call > 'time'. Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. Time is not related to space or matter in any way. > TH > > > > In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': > > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3eti9Fkl7sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
Am 09.09.2016 00:43, schrieb HGW.: >> I personally assume, that my idea is correct. >> >> Reason: it provides a possible mechanism for a variety of observations. >> >> I only need very few assumptions, like e.g. 'points have features'. >> >> If I assume, that points might be not just coordinates, but have the >> intrinsic ability to have a feature, then we have a different solution >> for the question, what causes fields. >> >> If we assume, that GR is correct and spacetime is responsible for >> gravity, than how about other fields? And how about particles? > > Spacetime is not responsible for gravity. It doesn't tell us anything > about gravity. General relativity is assumed to be the best theory about gravity. So my opinion is, that if this is true, than I cannot make it better. So I regard GR as valid and responsible for gravity. What I try to do, is finding a connection from GR to QM. Since quantum mechanics is about particles and fields, I try to model particles on the same foundation as gravity. I simply use the term 'spacetime' and borrow it from GR, but do not really deal with GR. So it's not my plan to create something like 'quantum-gravity', but 'relativistic particles'. I mainly use the version of relativity developed by Herman Minkowski. So I have not even references to GR or to SRT. And instead of tensors I want to use complex-four vectors. But the rest of relativity I regard as mainly valid. >> My assumption is, that spacetime can have internal structure and this is >> what we call 'matter' (or 'radiation'). >> >> These stable patterns emerge, since the (pointlike) elements of >> spacetime are interconnected. The connection is similar to how >> quaternions are multiplied. >> >> This make structures stay stable along a certain axis, which we call >> 'time'. > > Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. > Time is not related to space or matter in any way. > This is what you THINK. But what I have presented is an assumption and about what I think is true. You can try to disprove the concept, if you like, but not on the basis of your opinion, but by showing, that my idea contains errors or violates observations. I show, for instance, that the particle concept contains errors, in showing, that 'Growing Earth' is in fact true. Since if the Earth would grow and would gain mass from within, then matter cannot be composed from particles, because they cannot get inside the planet. So you could also use the scientific method and show, where my idea has inconsistencies or violates observations. Only you cannot base this on you own opinion or what other scientists believe to be true, but on observations of natural phenomena. TH >> >> In case you are interested you should have a look at my 'book': >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nqu9u3$1601$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391845 |
On 9/8/2016 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > General relativity is assumed to be the best theory about gravity. So my > opinion is, that if this is true, than I cannot make it better. > > So I regard GR as valid and responsible for gravity. What I try to do, > is finding a connection from GR to QM. > > Since quantum mechanics is about particles and fields, I try to model > particles on the same foundation as gravity. > > I simply use the term 'spacetime' and borrow it from GR, but do not > really deal with GR. > > So it's not my plan to create something like 'quantum-gravity', but > 'relativistic particles'. > > I mainly use the version of relativity developed by Herman Minkowski. So > I have not even references to GR or to SRT. > > And instead of tensors I want to use complex-four vectors. > > But the rest of relativity I regard as mainly valid. Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. But your ideas don't really use any of the concepts of relativity or quantum mechanics with any faithfulness, so instead you "borrow" words like spacetime and "complex-four vectors" but you don't mean by those words what they mean to physicists. Instead, you give them your own internal meaning and piece them together so that what you say sounds vaguely like physics but is something else entirely. In the vernacular, this is known as tossing a word salad. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3gtlrF4vkrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391868 |
Am 09.09.2016 14:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. > What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem > interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and > so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and > quantum mechanics. But your ideas don't really use any of the concepts > of relativity or quantum mechanics with any faithfulness, so instead you > "borrow" words like spacetime and "complex-four vectors" but you don't > mean by those words what they mean to physicists. Instead, you give them > your own internal meaning and piece them together so that what you say > sounds vaguely like physics but is something else entirely. In the > vernacular, this is known as tossing a word salad. > Not quite ... Actually I'm not obliged to use concepts, which I try to disprove, because I think they are wrong. And I disagree with certain fundamental assumptions of QM, hence cannot use usual QM methods. Instead I try to show, that particles are 'relative' (like space and time). One of the main axioms of QM is that of one single axis of time. Since GR would allow multiple timelines, this axiom cannot be kept. What I try to do is replicate the same ideas on the foundation of a few simple principles. So I have different axioms and base my concept on those. E.g. I assume that GR is (mainly) valid and that particles are 'relative'. I borrowed from QM the concept of operators and assume, that the idea of particles actually stems from the fact, that certain structures could be explained, if you regard an operator as a 'thing', which would create a certain pattern. The patterns are real, but the operator is just a method and not real. But more or less I think, that QM is wrong and particles do not really exist. The photoelectric effect I would interpret in the framework of my own concept. So photons and electrons are the same thing, only belonging to a different FoR. Hence blocking of light would generate charge (in a conductive surface). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3jei8Fn5j0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391868 |
Am 09.09.2016 14:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > Yes, I know what you are doing. So do a lot of people. > What you are doing is trying to lay out a sketch of ideas that seem > interesting to you. You want to make them seem relevant to physics and > so you ascribe your ideas to a popular problem, unifying gravity and > quantum mechanics. Actually I tried to unify General Relativity and QM. Gravity is regarded as a problem, which is already solved in the framework of GR. My method was somehow like this: try to find similarities between GR and QM. I found one in the bra/ket formalism to a quaternion formula, which describes a rotation. The similarity is certainly not that obvious, but was, nevertheless, the point, from which I have started. The formula is this: v' = q' * v * q^-1 So I tried to generate something like particles with 'quaternion rotation'. This is in fact possible, if you assume, that the 'elements of spacetime' behave like quaternions and are connected to their neighbours similar to how quaternions are multiplied. This also a unusual concept, even if there are a few 'quaternion fans'. Since quaternions have some disadvantages, I tried to find something similar, but without such disadvantages. This I found in the papers of Jonathan Scott about complex four-vectors. This was somehow my framework and my book is based on such assumptions. ( here, btw: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) Sooo... After all I was kind of pleased with my work. But actually nobody else. The result surprised my a little bit, since other theories are also not quite finished. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <368d54a2-0e6a-4461-b1d9-a97f35176c3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391822 |
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 4:43:26 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote: > > Spacetime does not exist. It s purely a mathematical concept. I agree. Rather, it's a MODEL of the way the universe works. > Time is not related to space or matter in any way. :-)) https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale Keep trying, Ralphie-boy, it's very funny watching you try to deny reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqv5ap$q3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391878 |
On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <373c355c-0593-4fa4-b28b-13068a530467@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391903 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqvube$1qhf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391924 |
On 10/09/16 12:21, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". > > Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race. You shouldn't give up. You only have to get clear of Rotchm, JanPB and Bodkin and you will win easily....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70245a8a-1555-4014-ae12-23fdfceea6d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391936 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 9:23:28 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote: > > On 10/09/16 12:21, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > On 09/09/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > "I have always wanted to become the world's greatest living idiot". > > > > Unfortunately, you have me beat so badly that I have given up the race. > > You shouldn't give up. You only have to get clear of Rotchm, JanPB and > Bodkin and you will win easily.... Your post shows how abysmally-stupid you are. I suggest that you get out of the insult game, which you aren't very good at, and try to learn some REAL physics instead of the delusional nonsense you try to peddle. Had any takers yet? I didn't think so. Even Seto isn't buying. “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.” —David Dunning But I believe that you strongly suspect that you ARE incompetent, which is why you bluster so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3mtcrFh2f4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391960 |
Am 10.09.2016 12:58, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > Your post shows how abysmally-stupid you are. I suggest that you get out > of the insult game, which you aren't very good at, and try to learn some > REAL physics instead of the delusional nonsense you try to peddle. Had > any takers yet? I didn't think so. Even Seto isn't buying. > > “We are only as blind as we want to be.” – Maya Angelou > > “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” > – Charles Darwin > > “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you > need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize > what a right answer is.” —David Dunning Actually I know a lot. But - as a matter of fact - everybody is incompetent, at least in certain realms. For instance I have not managed juggle, even if I have tried that. But I can build boomerangs and through them, that they return to me. So you have skills in certain realms and incompetence in others. Now it is pointless to insist on competence in realms, where an individual possesses none. It is better to demand competence in those realms, where a person has some or claims to have. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web