Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b81bec24-a440-4f80-b590-9d5cc5df1a72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394252 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 16:20:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel > > Look at the oryginal Einstin's paper: > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html > > > > do you see there, at the begining, the: x = ct ? > > So the "r" is simply obfuscation, as expected of a dishonest person. The r is due to the general case of light signal: r_vec = c_vec * t = c(cosf, sinf); instead of the trivial: x = ct (ct,0). So, You can learn something new - just try to solve this general case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cbc7edf-0a0d-476d-87ed-48f782a95f7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394254 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 16:20:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel > > Look at the oryginal Einstin's paper: > > > > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html > > > > > > do you see there, at the begining, the: x = ct ? > > > > So the "r" is simply obfuscation, as expected of a dishonest person. > > The r is due to the general case of light signal: > > r_vec = c_vec * t = c(cosf, sinf); instead of the trivial: x = ct (ct,0). > > So, You can learn something new - just try to solve this general case. One can't learn ANYTHING from a liar except to not fall for their dishonest yammering. The "r" is due to your disingenuous bullshit. It implies that the light expands in a spherical shell, which is irrelevant to the case at hand. It is intentional obfuscation, the only thing you're good at. But I see right through you, lying weasel. > c'(f) = k(c-vcosf) Hey, lying shithead, I refuted your butt-headed baloney so quit trying to pedal your tripe ELSE-where :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5855f663-f0ac-4878-8ae6-502f950d903d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394258 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 17:13:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 16:20:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel > > Look at the oryginal Einstin's paper: > > > > > > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html > > > > > > > > do you see there, at the begining, the: x = ct ? > > > > > > So the "r" is simply obfuscation, as expected of a dishonest person. > > > > The r is due to the general case of light signal: > > > > r_vec = c_vec * t = c(cosf, sinf); instead of the trivial: x = ct (ct,0). > > > > So, You can learn something new - just try to solve this general case. > > One can't learn ANYTHING from a liar except to not fall for their dishonest > yammering. The "r" is due to your disingenuous bullshit. It implies that > the light expands in a spherical shell, which is irrelevant to the case at > hand. It is intentional obfuscation, the only thing you're good at. But > I see right through you, lying weasel. > > > c'(f) = k(c-vcosf) > > Hey, lying shithead, I refuted your butt-headed baloney so quit trying to > pedal your tripe ELSE-where :-) This is the LET direct solution, made by Poincare, notabene.. so You are probably very advanced in a pseudomath, not in the math, unfortunately. C = c(cosf, sinf); V = (v, 0) thus: C-V = (ccosf - v, sinf) but due to the contraction, along the V, it is: C' = (C-V)' = (k(ccosf - v), sinf) = (cx',cy') so, the speed of light, in a moving frame, is simply: c'(f) = sqrt(c_x'^2 + c_y'^2) = k(c-vcosf) The End of story about the relativistic idiocy: c = inv is equivalent to t' = ... simply. So, Einstein discovered... a stupid tautology in geometry! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14162722-47f7-4265-b78c-8efc8837e48a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394264 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:42:46 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > [Lying baloney, as usual] Nobody cares what a lying baloney-spewing ignoramus says. Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty space between your ears.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5460013-dbe5-4e1f-a435-c202a098f356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394269 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:04:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:42:46 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > [Lying baloney, as usual] > > Nobody cares what a lying baloney-spewing ignoramus says. > > Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty space between your ears. Oh! Your IQ is bellow 88... I'm very sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e22b509-9637-4403-9d32-bf05faab2960@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394272 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:04:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:42:46 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > > [Lying baloney, as usual] > > > > Nobody cares what a lying baloney-spewing ignoramus says. > > > > Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty space between your > > ears. > > Oh! Your IQ is bellow 88... I'm very sorry. Feel sorry for yourself, lying weasel. Your IQ is below 1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b454311-148d-4219-b841-8f034d89c073@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394283 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 22:28:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:04:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:42:46 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > [Lying baloney, as usual] > > > > > > Nobody cares what a lying baloney-spewing ignoramus says. > > > > > > Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that empty space between your > > > ears. > > > > Oh! Your IQ is bellow 88... I'm very sorry. > > Feel sorry for yourself, lying weasel. Your IQ is below 1 Oh! I'm very sorry you don't know what is the IQ too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nshuac$hrs$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394085 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >The speed of light relative to the source is indeed c. Since the source >is accelerating, no two pulses will move at the same speed. What could >possibly make them do otherwise? The relativistic speed addition formula makes them do otherwise, Ralph. As you remember, I already proved to you that the speed of light will be c relative to both the source and to the observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsirnm$vpi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394203 |
On 29/09/16 12:29, Michael Moron-y wrote: .."I am so stupid I was fooled by a maths trick." Let w = c = c((c+v)/(c+v)) = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2) THE BLOODY EQUATION COMES FROM THE POSTULATE. IT DOES NOT PROVE IT, YOU IDIOT!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nskl98$oe9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394240 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >Let w = c = c((c+v)/(c+v)) = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2) >THE BLOODY EQUATION COMES FROM THE POSTULATE. IT DOES NOT PROVE IT, YOU >IDIOT! Ralph Malcolm, thanks for providing more support that the relativistic speed equation is correct by working it backwards. But your logic is what is backwards, you seem to claim that if you work an equation backwards it somehow disproves it. That's like trying to say that 1+2=3 is false because you can work it backwards and get 3-1=2. That's nonsense, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nss1d0$4q8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394328 |
On 30/09/16 13:13, Mickey Moron made it quite clear that he is a waste of good molecular bonds and deserves to be plonked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsss0t$fdg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394646 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 30/09/16 13:13, Mickey Moron made it quite clear that he is a waste >of good molecular bonds and deserves to be plonked. What's the matter, Ralph Malcolm? You don't like it when I showed you how the speed of light is c relative to the source AND the speed of light is c relative to the observer, no matter what the speed of the source is, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nspeou$gom$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393942 |
On 27/09/16 12:43, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/09/2016 11:55 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer. >> >> You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source. >> >> I agree. >> >> What's the next step in your argument? >> >> Sylvia. >> > > Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened > last time? It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer approach at v. End of story. There can be no further argument. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0afc94a0-f164-4805-8b22-756bb140690a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394544 |
W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 00:53:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. > It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer > approach at v. End of story. --If-- moves at c relative to its source --then-- at c+v relative to an observer approach at v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsqbqs$1f3e$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394545 |
On 02/10/16 10:22, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 00:53:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. >> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >> approach at v. End of story. > > --If-- moves at c relative to its source --then-- at c+v relative to an observer > approach at v. approaching at v...obviously. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5dt0cFnjgoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394544 |
On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 27/09/16 12:43, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 25/09/2016 11:55 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> >>> Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer. >>> >>> You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> What's the next step in your argument? >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened >> last time? > > It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer > approach at v. End of story. > There can be no further argument. > So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's your evidence for that? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt19nb$kvd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394657 |
On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened >>> last time? >> >> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >> approach at v. End of story. >> There can be no further argument. >> > > So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's > your evidence for that? Every known physical experiment proves it. > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5j09hFgpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394855 |
On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: > On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened >>>> last time? >>> >>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >>> approach at v. End of story. >>> There can be no further argument. >>> >> >> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >> your evidence for that? > > Every known physical experiment proves it. > Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdf103ea-458e-4199-b4ba-028457c27344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394868 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 02:37:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: > > On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened > >>>> last time? > >>> > >>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer > >>> approach at v. End of story. > >>> There can be no further argument. > >>> > >> > >> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's > >> your evidence for that? > > > > Every known physical experiment proves it. > > > > Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, > including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? > > Sylvia. The experiments are superfluous in the domain of the math theory. an example: 1 = 1 1+1/2 = 1.5 1+1/2+1/4 = 1.75 ... 1+1/2+1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... infinite times = 2.0 show me an experimental proof of the simple fact!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e5j1pjF9k0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394869 |
On 5/10/2016 11:44 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 02:37:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 5/10/2016 9:16 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On 03/10/16 13:10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2016 9:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened >>>>>> last time? >>>>> >>>>> It moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer >>>>> approach at v. End of story. >>>>> There can be no further argument. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>> your evidence for that? >>> >>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >>> >> >> Which particular experiments support the theory that velocities, >> including velocities comparable to c, combine by simple addition? >> >> Sylvia. > > The experiments are superfluous in the domain of the math theory. > > an example: > 1 = 1 > 1+1/2 = 1.5 > 1+1/2+1/4 = 1.75 > > ... > 1+1/2+1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... infinite times = 2.0 > show me an experimental proof of the simple fact! > The question is not whether numbers combine by simple addition, but whether velocities do. Even in Newtonian mechanics velocities only combine by simple addition if they're collinear. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web