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 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d50d69df-ab93-4942-8e29-05354ed0af0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392120 |
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 11:39:43 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 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. I was referring to HGW, not you. But now that you have my attention :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e27fi9F84qfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390779 |
Am 24.08.2016 20:23, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: > On 24/08/16 15:37, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 24.08.2016 03:19, schrieb HGWilson, DSc.: >> >>>>>> Question is, how to get the salt out. >>>>> >>>>> That takes ENERGY...lot of it! >>> >>>> Well, yes. But energy isn't a big problem neither. It is a problem, but >>>> not of the kind, which could not be solved. >>>> >>>> So, now (cheap!) energy sources are required, which enable to de-salt >>>> huge amounts of sea-water. >>>> >>>> Should be possible, but I actually do not to speculate about the >>>> details. >>> >>> Have you heard of Dubai? It has been using oil for desalination but its >>> reserves are now running out. Right now, 3,000,000 people live in >>> inhospitable desert. What do you think will happen to them without >>> energy? Incidentally, Dubai has no sewerage system an has to cart all >>> waste into a remote spot in the desert where it is dumped. >> >> >> I have heard about a process called 'reverted osmosis', which allows to >> desalt water. >> >> Possibly the Dubains could buy a few of these machines and create >> desalted water. > > I think they do that already...but it is still uses a lot of > energy....pushing water through membranes at 400 psi.... > >> As possible energy source they have actually the sun, which shines a lot >> in Dubai. > > The world will need lots more solar panels in future....but their energy > payback time is still quite long. > The economy of a certain system for production of electric energy does not really fall into the realm of physics. Sure, we would like to create machines, which are also a economic success. But prices of things depend too much on human decisions, hence are not a subject of sciences like physics. Whether or not solar panels are a good investment depends on the price of these panels, their output of electricity and competition in the market of electricity. Physicist usually are not concerned with attributes like prices, since what something costs on some market is not a question, that scientists decide. The Chinese have made the decision, that they want to produce lots of cheap solar panels and therefore panels get cheaper. Since Dubai has really a lot of sunshine, the investment in solar panels could eventually be profitable. But there are other possibilities, which also would solve the water-problem. E.g. they could build a water-pipelines to somewhere, where is enough water. Or they could hire ships (or build own) which transport water around the globe. There are even more possibilities and which one they chose is not a scientific question. >>> >>>> There's not much hope in such a situation, since humans have no >>>> influence upon Earth' interior, hence cannot stop the process itself. >>> >>> The Earth's interior is not to blame. The problems are mainly due to >>> human activity. >> >> Sure, human activities is causing trouble on planet Earth. >> >> But the effect you describe, which causes desertification, is not caused >> by humans, but by Earth itself. > > Sure, there are regions that get little rainfall...and they have been > deserts for many thousands of years. The changes of today have occurred > mainly in the last hundred years and are rapidly increasing in rate. Geology is not changing in a few hundred years. The proper grid for geological developments is one million years. A year for Earth is equivalent to a blink of the eye for us. Even a thousand years is a rather short span. ... >> >> I am actually kind of 'expert' in this field and have done some sort of >> 'research' for several years. Mainly I have looked at certain formations >> in Peru and Chile (on Google.Earth) and tried to figure out, how these >> landscape have formed over millions of years. > > You don't seem to know much about the Earth at all. Do you know what > sedimentary rock is? Have you heard of sub-oceanic plate movement? The > desert in Chile has been caused by the uplifting of land as the eastern > pacific plate moves underneath the W coast of S America. A combination > of cold water currents, dry trade winds and the 'rain shadow' effect has > resulted in almost zero rainfall in that whole area. Define 'knowledge'. I tell about what I think is true. If you do not agree, this is your right, as it is mine to disagree with what you regard as true. Truth is not a democratic decision and even tradition or multitudes of supporters does not render a statement valid. There is only one scale and that is nature itself, upon what a certain idea is measured. And if I say, that 'Growing Earth' is true, this is what I think is true. If this statement matches an aspect of the real world, this is true, whether or not people agree. I say, that plate tectonics is wrong in the point called 'subduction' and in the assumption of the constant size. You disagree and assume, the Earth had always the same size. These are now two distinct statements, from which one is correct while the other is not. You would apparently bet on 'steady state Earth' and I would bet on 'Growing Earth'. And I believe, that I would win. > >> Answer: the Earth was once smaller and current surface was once >> sea-floor. Former island are now mountains. And with growth of the >> planets the sea-floor went higher in respect to the mean sea-level, >> since the water flows into deeper locations, leaving former sea-floor >> behind. > > This is nonsense. Why don't you read a decent book about the geological > history of the Earth. The earth's axis regularly changes its tilt. Its > magnetic field moves around. The continents were once all connected and > are more or less 'floating' on magma. Most large mountain ranges such as > the Himalayas and Swiss alps have been formed by one land mass colliding > with another. Ice ages come and go regularly...of course there is > constant change... but the changes caused by human activity hav Actually I did not want to study geology, but was locking for an counter example to the standard model of QM. I wanted to prove, that atoms are not composed from distinct entities called 'particles' (as the standard model assumes), but are 'one thing'. I wanted to prove this, since I wanted to prove, that matter is 'relative'. So matter could be created out of nothing and 'Growing Earth' would prove this possibility - if proven. So I spent my time in trying to prove 'Growing Earth'. It was actually a lot of time and now I'm among the experts in this field. Certainly I'm not an expert in geology and do neither claim to be or actually want to become, since my aim was to prove a certain statement from the realm of theoretical physics. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npdbou$1bln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390508 |
On 8/21/2016 3:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 21/08/16 21:35, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:19:11 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. >> wrote: >>> >>> Civilization is on the verge of collapse....mainly because of the >>> existence of religion. >> >> Baloney! ISIS is a joke in that respect, a little popgun. If >> things blow up in the Middle East, it will be because of >> power-hungry nations. > > What do you mean IF? It couldn't be much worse than it is already! > Don't you get any news in your shit country? > You may be aware that the carnage has in fact been worse several times in the last 2000 years. And so far, the world has not ended during that time. So are you thinking that humanity is going to perish sometime the next decade, or in the next 11-100 years, or in the next 101-2000 years? > >>> The Earth is vastly overpopulated and has reached breaking point. >> >> Then go live in the Outback. There are many places that are greatly >> under- populated, all that is needed is energy - and we know how to >> get that. > > Idiot! Have you heard of something called 'water'? Have you heard of > soil salinity? Have you heard that phosphates are running out? > Have you heard anything beyond what some poofy pedophile preacher tells > you? > >>> There is no decent future for anyone alive today. >> >> Speak for yourself, nihilist. > > I suppose you're one of those idiots who thinks something called a > 'god' is maintaining this planet as a playground for his sadistic games. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43373d29-f5be-4008-8ee2-76ad71fef50d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390508 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 2:34:37 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 21/08/16 21:35, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 3:19:11 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. > > wrote: > > > > > > Civilization is on the verge of collapse....mainly because of the > > > existence of religion. > > > > Baloney! ISIS is a joke in that respect, a little popgun. If > > things blow up in the Middle East, it will be because of > > power-hungry nations. > > What do you mean IF? It couldn't be much worse than it is already! > Don't you get any news in your shit country? Don't you have a brain to process the news? > > > The Earth is vastly overpopulated and has reached breaking point. > > > > Then go live in the Outback. There are many places that are greatly > > under- populated, all that is needed is energy - and we know how to > > get that. > > Idiot! Have you heard of something called 'water'? Of course, dummkopf. > Have you heard of soil salinity? Have you ever heard of salt tolerant plants? > Have you heard that phosphates are running out? That's baloney. > Have you heard anything beyond what some poofy pedophile preacher tells you? Since you are screaming that the sky is falling, perhaps you're shucking your atheistic vestments and climbing aboard the second coming train and the battle of Armageddon > > > There is no decent future for anyone alive today. > > > > Speak for yourself, nihilist. > > I suppose you're one of those idiots who thinks something called a > 'god' is maintaining this planet as a playground for his sadistic games. I suppose you're a nihilistic creep who doesn't believe in anything except the lies he tells
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfmnv$sfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390566 |
On 22/08/16 20:35, Gary Harnagel reassured the world that his condition has not improved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npdaoa$1af5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390478 |
On 8/21/2016 4:19 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Civilization is on the verge of collapse....mainly because of the > existence of religion. > The Earth is vastly overpopulated and has reached breaking > point. > There is no decent future for anyone alive today. On what basis do you claim such a dim prognosis? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npdagi$19qc$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390472 |
On 8/20/2016 11:51 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > This has to do with - mainly - personal reasons, since this 'wipe-out' > would certainly have an effect upon people, that I have a relation to > and which I would eventually miss. How would you miss anyone if you're wiped out? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np59r0$2i9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390295 |
On 8/18/2016 3:30 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 19/08/16 04:51, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/16/2016 11:56 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> >>> TH >> >> This sounds a little like sour grapes to me. If you are German, then >> your complaints about the US educational fee system are irrelevant to >> you. You could be indulging in free college education in physics in >> Germany. But for some reason, you do not do this, and somehow >> American policy about education is at fault for that? >> >> As for your comments about the US, it is absolutely true that America >> is the land of opportunity, but that opportunity is not served on a >> platter of state-sponsored entitlement. Here, advancement requires >> personal investment. I am a woodworker. Nobody offered me a job in a >> state-sponsored woodworking shop. I had to buy or make my own tools, >> I had to build my own client list, I had to find my own wood >> suppliers. In the first few years of my business, I operated at a net >> loss while making those investments. This is also common for >> restaurant owners, auto repair shops, and any number of other >> vocations. Taking a career in a specialized area like law or medicine >> or engineering or architecture or science is no different. You're >> going to be operating at a net loss for a while until there is return >> on your advancement. I don't think this is intended to separate >> classes of people, since I don't few restaurant owners as being any >> more "high class" than anyone else. > > This might contain an element of truth but you overlook a vital factor. > Where does a person obtain the initial training and capital that will > enable him or her to eventually work for themselves if they so desire? This depends on whether you are looking to support an investment for a new business or for an education, either of which may result in eventual success. For either, loans are common, whether that's a small-business loan or a student loan. If you take a loan to pay for that investment, then you're going to need to pay back that loan regardless whether you succeed or not, so as a borrower you are definitely motivated to succeed. In this case, you as the student or you as the small-business owner are assuming the risk of your venture. But for either, there are also other channels. For education, there are grants and scholarships which are designed to make education more affordable for those who don't have much money. For small businesses, there are angel investors and venture capitalists who will offer their money for some fraction of profits. In this case, it is the benefactor that is assuming the risk of the venture, and so they'll generally want some evidence of good risk. If you're a student, they'll want to see that you've gotten marks of academic excellence up to that point. If you're starting a small business, they'll want to see the quality of your goods, the soundness of your business plan, and some evidence that you know how to keep the business going and growing. So if you can't demonstrate that you're a good risk, you're going to have to take the loan approach and assume the risk that you'll do well. If you're not willing to assume that risk, then (at least in America) you're now out of options unless you come from a wealthy family who is indulgent. I'll just point out on that score that families don't become wealthy by squandering money -- or at least they don't stay wealthy that way. So it's rather unlikely even if you're wealthy that your family is going to support you unless you're a good risk to begin with. No free lunch. > Some are lucky enough to have rich parents who can pay for their > education and provide an inheritance but most are not that lucky. > Traditionally and in many countries, government institutions provided > wide ranging opportunities for young people to learn trades and > professions by way of lowly paid scholarships and apprenticeships. These > training grounds were taken away by the Regan/Thatcher right wing > fanaticism that forced the worldwide privatization of all those often > highly efficient government organizations that competed in some way with > the big multinational companies or which were breeding grounds for > socialistic views. We are now paying for that insane campaign by way of > massive youth unemployment and demoralization in just about every > capitalist country on earth along with a general collapse of business > ethics and overall living standards. The USA and even my country have > now become very unhappy places for about ninety percent of their > population through chronic lack of security. I really don't think the US is in the place you describe. I live here and there is not the malaise at the level you believe. It is true that there is now higher stratification between the super rich and the super poor, and this is a problem. But it is simply not true that the middle class has a lower standard of living than they did, say, 30 years ago, nor are they more in debt. Unemployment is now down again, following a bad recession 6-7 years ago. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gworxUlu27o/VPmu_-G-ykI/AAAAAAAAikE/ovom3v9-2IY/s1600/UnemployFeb2015.PNG Please do not project your own disillusionment and distress over your own unemployability to a nation you do not know. > Whilst private enterprise is to be encouraged and fully supported, a > little bit of socialism is vital for setting standards and providing > secure jobs for school leavers in particular. Private organizations > cannot afford to train young people any more and offer little security > of employment for even top employees...whilst at hte same time, company > directors are ripping off the public by paying themselves ridiculously > high salaries. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np5d3m$74r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390147 |
On 8/16/2016 5:04 PM, JanPB wrote: > No. The concept of paying fees (esp. high fees) for education is singularly > modern-American. People in the US very quickly forgot that their public > colleges were either free or nearly free about 50 years ago, e.g. UC Berkeley. > > So now when an old politician comes up with the (obvious to him) idea to return > to what used to be the standard (and remains so everywhere else), he sounds > like he lost his mind (yes, I'm talking about Sanders). > > Why students here tolerate this situation is another interesting story, > perhaps worth a PhD in American psyche. Remember few years ago France was > toying with the idea of introducing tuition fees? There were huge marches in > the streets and the idea got quickly buried. Yes, well, this is also why taxes are higher outside the U.S. as well. In many countries, the high tax rates support the idea that certain standards of first-world living -- such as medical care and university education -- should be guaranteed for all. The U.S. has only bought into that in certain areas -- such as retirement -- and only when it is clearly demonstrated that the lack of access to those standards lowers the welfare of the society as a whole. For medical insurance, there was a pretty solid case because without insurance, medical costs in the U.S. can be devastating. (Notice that the guarantee in the U.S. is for insurance, not for low-cost medical care.) For college education, it is apparently not established that the lack of guaranteed access to subsidized education is crippling the country in any way. Scandinavia made a different call on that. It's worth noting that 25% of the work force in the U.S. is in sales, for which there is no university degree plan as far as I can tell. > > Another interesting question is why Americans even bother to go to American > colleges today when they can easily go to colleges in Germany for free with > the credits transferred back home automatically? It seems it's a psychological > barrier (unless we're talking very US-specific professions like medicine > or law). Same for medicine, where surgical vacations are common. The cost of the travel plus the reduced cost of the procedure abroad is still less than the cost of the procedure in the U.S. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c888b72-88a7-4256-9bed-acb8f320caee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390309 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 5:04 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > No. The concept of paying fees (esp. high fees) for education is singularly
> > modern-American. People in the US very quickly forgot that their public
> > colleges were either free or nearly free about 50 years ago, e.g. UC Berkeley.
> >
> > So now when an old politician comes up with the (obvious to him) idea to return
> > to what used to be the standard (and remains so everywhere else), he sounds
> > like he lost his mind (yes, I'm talking about Sanders).
> >
> > Why students here tolerate this situation is another interesting story,
> > perhaps worth a PhD in American psyche. Remember few years ago France was
> > toying with the idea of introducing tuition fees? There were huge marches in
> > the streets and the idea got quickly buried.
>
> Yes, well, this is also why taxes are higher outside the U.S. as well.
Yes, but "taxes" is just a word. The way it works is like this: in Europe Mr. X pays 10 dollars
in taxes and gets all the goodies. In America Mr. Y pays "lower taxes": 7 dollars (say)
PLUS 50 dollars for all the case-specific extras covering the European equivalent.
Since these (hugely more expensive!) extras are not called "tax" in the US but by some other
fancy name ("copay", "insurance", "fee-this", "fee-that"), people don't object while paying
much more for the same service.
This is very characteristic and unusual because normally Americans are very good at
zeroing in on the bottom line (even the very popularity of the phrase "the bottom line" is
telling). But for some reason as soon as the word "taxes" is uttered, all that American
wisdom goes out the window and "the bottom line" (i.e., the content of your wallet after
all is said and done) gets replaced by a _religion_ called "taxes must be as low as possible
no matter how much it affects my wallet".
There must exist an explanation for that, I'm not sure what it is.
Last but not least, US taxes are subject to meta-fees in the sense that if your financial
situation is anything but borderline-trivial, you have to PAY a tax lawyer to do your forms
OR invest a significant amount of time to become an expert yourself. In Europe the process
is incomparably more streamlined.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e1nkooFdrqqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390322 |
Am 19.08.2016 03:42, schrieb JanPB:
>> Yes, well, this is also why taxes are higher outside the U.S. as well.
>
> Yes, but "taxes" is just a word. The way it works is like this: in Europe Mr. X pays 10 dollars
> in taxes and gets all the goodies. In America Mr. Y pays "lower taxes": 7 dollars (say)
> PLUS 50 dollars for all the case-specific extras covering the European equivalent.
> Since these (hugely more expensive!) extras are not called "tax" in the US but by some other
> fancy name ("copay", "insurance", "fee-this", "fee-that"), people don't object while paying
> much more for the same service.
>
> This is very characteristic and unusual because normally Americans are very good at
> zeroing in on the bottom line (even the very popularity of the phrase "the bottom line" is
> telling). But for some reason as soon as the word "taxes" is uttered, all that American
> wisdom goes out the window and "the bottom line" (i.e., the content of your wallet after
> all is said and done) gets replaced by a _religion_ called "taxes must be as low as possible
> no matter how much it affects my wallet".
>
> There must exist an explanation for that, I'm not sure what it is.
Well, I assume some sort of rip-off. And people do not want to see what
is actually scary.
As far as I know it started in 1871 and with the creation of
ex-territorial status of the District of Columbia.
Also the stupid British 'common law' system was implemented.
'Common law' is the most idiotic law system and the most obscure and
undemocratic system, you could possibly find. In essence it means, that
court decisions have the function to bind further decisions. So court
decisions are actually laws, but not issued by something like a
parliament, but certain 'in-groups' (livery companies, who control the
access to the profession of judge or lawyer).
Such livery companies are also the owners of the FED and therefore
regard US citizens as their property. And taxes are, what they can
squeeze out.
The wast income is funnelled into the military, what is utilised to
promote their own agenda ('world-domination').
To prevent people from seeing this, they are kept as dumb as possible.
The smarter parts of the society are sworn in into something obscure,
like one of the unnecessary agencies, a black project, the military or a
sect. So they have to keep their mouth shut. And that is, what they do.
Occasionally someone talks, but usually this does not matter. It case it
does, this person disappears or has to flee (like Snowden).
The rest of the population is sedated enough to believe in what comes
out of the tv.
> Last but not least, US taxes are subject to meta-fees in the sense that if your financial
> situation is anything but borderline-trivial, you have to PAY a tax lawyer to do your forms
> OR invest a significant amount of time to become an expert yourself. In Europe the process
> is incomparably more streamlined.
Well, actually the German tax system is VERY complicated, too. And
'Steuerberater' (~~> tax lawyer) is also necessary (or at least
recommended).
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nochbp$1t6l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389557 |
On 8/9/2016 1:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > The concept of paid schools is kind of alien in the German society. > Usually public schools and universities are free. > > There exist private schools, of course, and those need to be paid. But > as a rule of thumb, schools are free. > > But writing into UseNet groups isn't even remotely like a school. And > certainly I neither wait for tuition and definitely do not want to pay for. > > So you may read my valuable contributions to the progress of mankind for > absolutely no charge whatsoever. And in return you will not be paid > neither. I think you make the mistake of thinking that all contributions are valuable. This is not so in science. It may be true in politics or art, where every perspective adds something. But in science, some contributions are positive, some have no value, and some have negative value. It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e1he0rFu6prU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389566 |
Am 09.08.2016 14:12, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > I think you make the mistake of thinking that all contributions are > valuable. This is not so in science. It may be true in politics or art, > where every perspective adds something. But in science, some > contributions are positive, some have no value, and some have negative > value. > > It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used > in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply > making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. > The equivalent to money in science is truth. So it is of interest in natural sciences (like e.g. physics) to find things out, that are in a way more true that previous believes. Such findings are not necessarily helpful (or 'valuable'), since some sorts of truth might be harmful for the personal interests of the researcher. This does not make harmful findings less scientifically correct. Only they could eventually have unwanted effects in realms, that are not natural science. Especially different to nature is the realm called 'economics', which circles around money (in the more common forms) and about the own interests and about how these could be maintained. So truth in physics is not necessarily valuable. This is actually inevitable, since nature does not pay in cash. Only people do that and people regard valuable, what promotes their own interests. This would make wrong assumptions scientifically useless. But incorrect assumptions have no negative value in science, since there ain't nothing like 'negative truth'. If an assumption is wrong, it just does not add (correct) understanding in physics. So the lowest possible value of an assumption is zero, which would mean: there is no grain of truth in it. But usually even wrong assumptions contain a few grains of value. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2gphqFfk87U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390137 |
Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger: > It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used > in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply > making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. This is a typical statement based on 'group-think' of people who believe, that science is theirs. People may eventually be smarter than the rest and the groups they build could collect a lot of scientific knowledge. But to have knowledge does not make this knowledge a property, since science is about nature and you cannot own nature. So you have also no authority to decide, what is the proper use of a term or in which circumstances its use is allowed. Here we had the question of 'RoS' or 'relativity of simultaneity'. I use a different definition, since I base my understanding of relativity on other foundations than you do. I use ideas of Herman Minkowski and regard SRT as wrong. Since you do the exact opposite, we have some kind of 'linguistic problems' and disagree about certain fundamental assumptions. This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3632bfd-6b55-4426-afed-017e0f61630a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391129 |
Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger: > It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used > in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply > making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. This is a typical statement based on 'group-think' of people who believe, that science is theirs. People may eventually be smarter than the rest and the groups they build could collect a lot of scientific knowledge. But to have knowledge does not make this knowledge a property, since science is about nature and you cannot own nature. So you have also no authority to decide, what is the proper use of a term or in which circumstances its use is allowed. Here we had the question of 'RoS' or 'relativity of simultaneity'. I use a different definition, since I base my understanding of relativity on other foundations than you do. I use ideas of Herman Minkowski and regard SRT as wrong. Since you do the exact opposite, we have some kind of 'linguistic problems' and disagree about certain fundamental assumptions. This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles. TH the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS MAGIC .......... Maybe they need to "Re-Evaluate" some of their base postulates, theorems & laws of physics ???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npvddq$k5p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391131 |
On 29/08/16 04:55, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your > 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the > proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles. > > > TH > > > the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS > > MAGIC .......... They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that light is essentially ballistic. > Maybe they need to "Re-Evaluate" some of their base postulates, theorems & laws of physics ??? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbaf0134-350d-4ae0-9b96-db2c09a47dc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391133 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 29/08/16 04:55, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > > Am 16.08.2016 23:13, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > > > > This would not worry me too much, since I do not belong to your > > 'in-group' neither and therefore regard as irrelevant, what is the > > proper use of the term 'simultaneity' in your particular circles. > > > > > > TH > > > > > > the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy & Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS > > > > MAGIC .......... > > They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense > of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that > light is essentially ballistic. And of course nobody noticed this except you. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2hjocFlekfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391144 |
Am 29.08.2016 02:05, schrieb JanPB: >>> >>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy& Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS >>> >>> MAGIC .......... >> >> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense >> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that >> light is essentially ballistic. > > And of course nobody noticed this except you. No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton. But this would not help that much, unless you explain, what the term 'particle' stands for. Usually quantum physicists call certain structures 'particle', if they show up long enough to be detected in a bubble chamber or similar device. But what is that particle 'in real'? My own assumption is, that all particles are certain structures within an undivided field, which I call 'spacetime'. So my own theory about matter is called 'structured spacetime'. (https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc22908a-43f0-47bc-823e-9b7e8796c47e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391149 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:08:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.08.2016 02:05, schrieb JanPB: > > >>> > >>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy& Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS > >>> > >>> MAGIC .......... > >> > >> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense > >> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that > >> light is essentially ballistic. > > > > And of course nobody noticed this except you. > > No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that > light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton. I meant today. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e2knvbFdk4eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391157 |
Am 29.08.2016 07:15, schrieb JanPB: >>>>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy& Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS >>>>> >>>>> MAGIC .......... >>>> >>>> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense >>>> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that >>>> light is essentially ballistic. >>> >>> And of course nobody noticed this except you. >> >> No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that >> light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton. > > I meant today. > You want to say, there is no recent physicists, who supports light particle ideas or 'emission theory of light' ? This is most likely wrong, too. As a matter of fact, I do not know, if there are some (or many) supporters of similar concepts today. But Google certainly spits out something... like e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory "Experimental verification of ballistic theories of light in Russia and the soviet union" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0030400X14010135 http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ I personally don't think, that light is carried by particles. But if light moves with constant velocity, this would indicate the existence of a mechanism, which governs the velocity on the way of the beam. This would also need to provide additional energy, to keep the beam at constant velocity. This invisible energy could actually be called 'dark energy'. So I would agree with this name for such an assumed mechanism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web