Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396486 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 04:47 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:46 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 21:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 21:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 06:34 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 22:55 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:23 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:51 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-25 08:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:39 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:50 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 07:56 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 19:41 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 05:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:47 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:58 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:13 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 18:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 19:59 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-09 08:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:46 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 22:08 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:49 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:57 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 05:05 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 01:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:59 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:42 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:17 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:19 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 16:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:08 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:51 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:33 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 19:11 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-02 22:05 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 04:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:09 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-08 10:54 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:51 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-01 12:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-14 06:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 21:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 03:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-23 12:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 16:00 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 21:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 16:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 20:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-24 14:45 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 14:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 06:49 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:04 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:32 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-03 06:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 10:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 01:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 02:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:24 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-23 11:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 11:42 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 12:46 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 14:24 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 22:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:02 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:42 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:53 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 03:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:09 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 04:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 04:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 22:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 23:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 04:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:54 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:38 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:36 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:25 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:57 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 06:28 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:35 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 23:13 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:27 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 05:06 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 22:53 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 23:16 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 17:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:21 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:24 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 08:28 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 05:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-27 14:21 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 23:16 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-28 04:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 06:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-30 05:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-16 07:26 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 23:07 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 03:44 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 07:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 14:36 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 18:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 19:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 20:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:10 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 04:43 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 06:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 07:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 07:45 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-16 20:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 08:45 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 14:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-18 09:29 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:01 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 09:47 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 06:36 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 17:38 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 19:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 19:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 21:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 07:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-29 00:57 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 04:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 07:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:40 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:54 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 01:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 02:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 03:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:20 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:28 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 05:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-28 15:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 13:46 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:41 -0500
Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:48 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:56 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:11 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 08:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7dl4bFs3edU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396697 |
Am 25.10.2016 01:33, schrieb Peter Riedt: >> Peter, you should know better. In the English dictionary are listed >> several definitions of words, and which one is appropriate depends on >> context. If you use the inappropriate definition for a given context, >> then this is your own mistake. >> >>> and their opposites are >>> 'not real/untrue/non existing/non present'. The former do not apply to LC but the latter do. >>> >>> Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist. >> >> No, Peter, what he said is that it depends on what you mean by "real". >> And here he explained what HE means by real, and you insist on taking a >> different definition. >> >>> His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is affected by LC. The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction' because the device was rotated only horizontal. They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed. This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical, not horizontal. Actually the assumptions about 'ether' by Michelson and Morley were unclear and at least twisted. They assumed something like a thin, invisible gas, that fills all space. But 'thin invisible gas' is called 'atmosphere' near the surface of planet Earth. And this is - of course - there. But apparently this 'ether' does not make interferometer-arms longer or shorter. So: 'ether' is not a gas and can apparently fall and vanish into the Earth. This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance. To illustrate this behaviour I use the picture of a pair of scissors. If closed, the thing is simply not there. If it opens, then two antagonistic rotations appear out of nowhere - like in pair creation. But these rotations like to reconnect and would like to close the blades again and vanish into nothing, what makes the thing drop (and the Earth grow). Well, certainly sounds weird. But - fortunately - I have written this 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7a2d10a-01f3-47ce-8c2e-670aa109b63f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396902 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:28:31 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 25.10.2016 01:33, schrieb Peter Riedt: > > > > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is > > affected by LC. > > The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction' True. > because the device was rotated only horizontal. False. Please TRY to envision the position of the lab on the earth and the position of the lab as the earth rotates and moves about the sun. If you do this correctly, you will see that the horizontal rotation causes the beams to lie along the earth's motion about the sun part of the time. > They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed. True. > This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical, > not horizontal. See above. You seem to have a problem with visualizing spatial relationships. > Actually the assumptions about 'ether' by Michelson and Morley were > unclear and at least twisted. They assumed something like a thin, > invisible gas, that fills all space. > > But 'thin invisible gas' is called 'atmosphere' near the surface of > planet Earth. And this is - of course - there. Irrelevant. Light travels in free space where there is no air. > But apparently this 'ether' does not make interferometer-arms longer or > shorter. According to LET, it does (of course, no one believes in LET today). > So: 'ether' is not a gas and can apparently fall and vanish into the Earth. Actually, it was assumed to pass through the earth. An alternate assumption was that the ether was "entrained" by the rotation of the earth (this assumption has been refuted by experiment). > This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether > and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance. Then the earth should be heating up and should be the temperature of the sun by now. > [More crazy stuff deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut2hq$1iq2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396911 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether >> and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance. > > Then the earth should be heating up and should be the temperature of the > sun by now. No, since a hypothetical existing Aether would contain planets along its structure (crystal undeformable). Things deforms, not the Aether. You both are getting it upside-down, symmetrical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 23:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7f95nFa0lbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396911 |
Am 27.10.2016 14:50, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is >>> affected by LC. >> >> The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction' > > True. > >> because the device was rotated only horizontal. > > False. Please TRY to envision the position of the lab on the earth and the > position of the lab as the earth rotates and moves about the sun. If you > do this correctly, you will see that the horizontal rotation causes the > beams to lie along the earth's motion about the sun part of the time. > >> They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed. > > True. > >> This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical, >> not horizontal. > > See above. You seem to have a problem with visualizing spatial relationships. No, not at all. With 'space' (from: 'spatial relations') you apparently mean 'euclidean 3d space'. This space is in my own model not the empty space, through which everything moves. Space is in my model the same thing, that is called in relativity 'past light cone'. The 'real thing' is spacetime and space is more or less a picture, we receive from the past. >> Actually the assumptions about 'ether' by Michelson and Morley were >> unclear and at least twisted. They assumed something like a thin, >> invisible gas, that fills all space. >> >> But 'thin invisible gas' is called 'atmosphere' near the surface of >> planet Earth. And this is - of course - there. > > Irrelevant. Light travels in free space where there is no air. > >> But apparently this 'ether' does not make interferometer-arms longer or >> shorter. > > According to LET, it does (of course, no one believes in LET today). > >> So: 'ether' is not a gas and can apparently fall and vanish into the Earth. > > Actually, it was assumed to pass through the earth. An alternate assumption > was that the ether was "entrained" by the rotation of the earth (this > assumption has been refuted by experiment). > >> This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether >> and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance. > > Then the earth should be heating up and should be the temperature of the > sun by now. This 'medium' spacetime has a certain unusual feature. That is a 'anti symmetric rotation'. In a simplified form you could visualize this with two rotating pointers, which rotate in opposite directions. These rotations build patterns and those are, what we call 'matter'. Very small entities are called 'atoms' and very large entities 'planets'. So in my model the Earth does not float through space, but is a certain substructure of spacetime and has features of a fractal vortex. (see here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) And of course the Earth is heated up. You can easily see the heat at any volcano. (Also the rotation of Earth stems from the vortex.) The idea is a little strange, I guess. But actually I think, that nature does in fact behave this way. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe154528-17d7-4516-8f5d-0f2f83d15a3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396958 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 3:16:42 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 27.10.2016 14:50, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is > > > > affected by LC. > > > > > > The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction' > > > > True. > > > > > because the device was rotated only horizontal. > > > > False. Please TRY to envision the position of the lab on the earth and the > > position of the lab as the earth rotates and moves about the sun. If you > > do this correctly, you will see that the horizontal rotation causes the > > beams to lie along the earth's motion about the sun part of the time. > > > > > They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed. > > > > True. > > > > > This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical, > > > not horizontal. > > > > See above. You seem to have a problem with visualizing spatial > > relationships. > > No, not at all. Yes, you do. It's IOTTMCO. > With 'space' (from: 'spatial relations') you apparently mean 'euclidean > 3d space'. Of course. > This space is in my own model not the empty space, through which > everything moves. Irrelevant. > Space is in my model the same thing, that is called in relativity 'past > light cone'. Irrelevant. > The 'real thing' is spacetime and space is more or less a picture, we > receive from the past. Irrelevant. And the rest of your baloney deleted since it has no bearing on the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 04:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7fsvmFe4ttU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396961 |
Am 27.10.2016 23:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> With 'space' (from: 'spatial relations') you apparently mean 'euclidean >> 3d space'. > > Of course. > >> This space is in my own model not the empty space, through which >> everything moves. > > Irrelevant. > >> Space is in my model the same thing, that is called in relativity 'past >> light cone'. > > Irrelevant. > >> The 'real thing' is spacetime and space is more or less a picture, we >> receive from the past. > > Irrelevant. And the rest of your baloney deleted since it has no bearing > on the real world. The features and dimensionality of the foundations of nature are actually, what physicists try to find out. That might be 'irrelevant' for you personally, as it is an irrelevant question for the wast majority of people. But in a forum, that bears the name " sci.physics.relativity", things are different and such 'irrelevant questions' are actually a relevant topic. So: what you regard as relevant (or not) is of no scientific relevance. Also "of course" is not a valid statement in a scientific discussion, especially as you used it to justify euclidean 3d-pace in connection with relativity. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d70cfc4-0924-4f24-856c-daf983d388b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396981 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 8:54:49 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 27.10.2016 23:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > With 'space' (from: 'spatial relations') you apparently mean 'euclidean > > > 3d space'. > > > > Of course. > > > > > This space is in my own model not the empty space, through which > > > everything moves. > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > Space is in my model the same thing, that is called in relativity 'past > > > light cone'. > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > The 'real thing' is spacetime and space is more or less a picture, we > > > receive from the past. > > > > Irrelevant. And the rest of your baloney deleted since it has no bearing > > on the real world. > > The features and dimensionality of the foundations of nature are > actually, what physicists try to find out. Dimensionality is a human invention. > That might be 'irrelevant' for you personally, as it is an irrelevant > question for the wast majority of people. > > But in a forum, that bears the name " sci.physics.relativity", things > are different and such 'irrelevant questions' are actually a relevant > topic. > > So: what you regard as relevant (or not) is of no scientific relevance. Actually, theories must describe experimentally-confirmed measurement, or they are irrelevant. > Also "of course" is not a valid statement in a scientific discussion, > especially as you used it to justify euclidean 3d-pace in connection > with relativity. > > > TH Both relativity and 3D space are also human inventions. In fact, so is mathematics. "Of course" certainly IS valid as it describes what I was referring to. Euclidean 3d space certainly is "valid" also. It all depends on what part of nature you are trying to describe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 06:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7lgatFnkspU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396985 |
Am 28.10.2016 05:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > >>> >>>> The 'real thing' is spacetime and space is more or less a picture, we >>>> receive from the past. >>> >>> Irrelevant. And the rest of your baloney deleted since it has no bearing >>> on the real world. >> >> The features and dimensionality of the foundations of nature are >> actually, what physicists try to find out. > > Dimensionality is a human invention. Nature exists without someone watching. Off course there exist features of nature, that could be described with human terms. These phrases are not the 'real thing', but a human abstraction. Now our abstractions should match this 'real thing' as far as possible. This is what theoretical physics tries to achieve. From such fundamental theories simplified versions are derived, that others sciences could could use in their realms. > >> That might be 'irrelevant' for you personally, as it is an irrelevant >> question for the wast majority of people. >> >> But in a forum, that bears the name " sci.physics.relativity", things >> are different and such 'irrelevant questions' are actually a relevant >> topic. >> >> So: what you regard as relevant (or not) is of no scientific relevance. > > Actually, theories must describe experimentally-confirmed measurement, or > they are irrelevant. This is not true. A theory must be possible. IOW no experiment should be in contradiction to a theory. If an experiment shows, that the theory can't be correct, the theory is wrong. But usefulness is not a requirement. We can create theories, which are perfectly useless, but are still valid theories. We can also create theories, which have no measurable entities in them. E.g. in cosmology we could assume things about the time before the big bang and that would be impossible to measure or verify. So theories should describe aspects of nature with assumptions, which we regard as valid. If an experiment shows, that our assumptions are wrong, we need to find something else. >> Also "of course" is not a valid statement in a scientific discussion, >> especially as you used it to justify euclidean 3d-pace in connection >> with relativity. >> >> >> TH > > Both relativity and 3D space are also human inventions. In fact, so is > mathematics. "Of course" certainly IS valid as it describes what I was > referring to. Euclidean 3d space certainly is "valid" also. It all > depends on what part of nature you are trying to describe. Well, than you mean something like a definition, that you refer to with 'of course'. This is certainly possibly, but not really, what scientific discussions are about. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e57df3a-6255-4d71-bcbc-904757453fc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397177 |
On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:55:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 28.10.2016 05:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > Dimensionality is a human invention. > > Nature exists without someone watching. Of course. > Off course there exist features of nature, that could be described with > human terms. Not "could be": ARE > These phrases are not the 'real thing', but a human abstraction. Waxing philosophical. > Now our abstractions should match this 'real thing' as far as possible. > This is what theoretical physics tries to achieve. > > From such fundamental theories simplified versions are derived, that > others sciences could could use in their realms. Not "could": ARE > > Actually, theories must describe experimentally-confirmed measurement, or > > they are irrelevant. > > This is not true. A theory must be possible. IOW no experiment should be > in contradiction to a theory. If an experiment shows, that the theory > can't be correct, the theory is wrong. > > But usefulness is not a requirement. > > We can create theories, which are perfectly useless, but are still valid > theories. I think your idea of "useless" isn't congruent with mine :-) > We can also create theories, which have no measurable entities in them. > E.g. in cosmology we could assume things about the time before the big > bang and that would be impossible to measure or verify. Are you sure it's impossible? http://scienceline.org/2008/07/physics-heger-bigbang/ And maybe the Big Bang wasn't so big after all: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html > So theories should describe aspects of nature with assumptions, which we > regard as valid. If an experiment shows, that our assumptions are wrong, > we need to find something else. Of course. > > Both relativity and 3D space are also human inventions. In fact, so is > > mathematics. "Of course" certainly IS valid as it describes what I was > > referring to. Euclidean 3d space certainly is "valid" also. It all > > depends on what part of nature you are trying to describe. > > > Well, than you mean something like a definition, that you refer to with > 'of course'. > This is certainly possibly, but not really, what scientific discussions > are about. > > TH You have to have definitions or you can't discuss science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 07:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e92cgbFf05hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397184 |
Am 30.10.2016 13:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:55:44 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 28.10.2016 05:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> >>> Dimensionality is a human invention. >> >> Nature exists without someone watching. > > Of course. > >> Off course there exist features of nature, that could be described with >> human terms. > > Not "could be": ARE > >> These phrases are not the 'real thing', but a human abstraction. > > Waxing philosophical. > >> Now our abstractions should match this 'real thing' as far as possible. >> This is what theoretical physics tries to achieve. >> >> From such fundamental theories simplified versions are derived, that >> others sciences could could use in their realms. > > Not "could": ARE > >>> Actually, theories must describe experimentally-confirmed measurement, or >>> they are irrelevant. >> >> This is not true. A theory must be possible. IOW no experiment should be >> in contradiction to a theory. If an experiment shows, that the theory >> can't be correct, the theory is wrong. >> >> But usefulness is not a requirement. >> >> We can create theories, which are perfectly useless, but are still valid >> theories. > > I think your idea of "useless" isn't congruent with mine :-) > >> We can also create theories, which have no measurable entities in them. >> E.g. in cosmology we could assume things about the time before the big >> bang and that would be impossible to measure or verify. > > Are you sure it's impossible? > > http://scienceline.org/2008/07/physics-heger-bigbang/ (Interesting, that someone has the same as me and writes about similar subjects.) Actually there is a similarity of big bang to light cones. The 'big crunch' is than the past light cone of the big bang, while the universe is the future light cone of the big bang. (These cones are actually not really cones, but a set of nested spheres, which are stacked in time.) Our sky is actually 'stacked in time' and a set of nested spheres, which belong to an earlier time, the further away. Now we could combine both pictures and get a 'big crunch' followed by a 'big bang'. The trick is, that the axis of time is 'relative' (to us as observers). This means: to every observer belongs a different big bang, a different axis of time and a different universe. The picture is also invertible and we could reverse the axis of time and think about 'big crunch' as 'big bang' for a different universe. (This is a universe, where the axis of time points into the opposite direction.) Now we could think about both: expansion and contraction. And both are happening at the same time. How would that look like? Certainly strange, since usually we assume one distinct direction of time across the entire universe, while 'time-loops' do not fit. So: to any axis of time belongs one inverse. This is the imaginary 'sheet', into which the big crunch vanishes and from where the big bang emerges. Since this hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time (of the observer), there is a different 'sheet' for every observer, hence a different big bang. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 23:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <533b359e-5d6d-490c-ad13-40b73a5946ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398586 |
(Interesting, that someone has the same as me and writes about similar subjects.) Actually there is a similarity of big bang to light cones. The 'big crunch' is than the past light cone of the big bang, while the universe is the future light cone of the big bang. (These cones are actually not really cones, but a set of nested spheres, which are stacked in time.) Our sky is actually 'stacked in time' and a set of nested spheres, which belong to an earlier time, the further away. Now we could combine both pictures and get a 'big crunch' followed by a 'big bang'. The trick is, that the axis of time is 'relative' (to us as observers). This means: to every observer belongs a different big bang, a different axis of time and a different universe. The picture is also invertible and we could reverse the axis of time and think about 'big crunch' as 'big bang' for a different universe. (This is a universe, where the axis of time points into the opposite direction.) Now we could think about both: expansion and contraction. And both are happening at the same time. How would that look like? Certainly strange, since usually we assume one distinct direction of time across the entire universe, while 'time-loops' do not fit. So: to any axis of time belongs one inverse. This is the imaginary 'sheet', into which the big crunch vanishes and from where the big bang emerges. Since this hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time (of the observer), there is a different 'sheet' for every observer, hence a different big bang. TH http://i68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg http://i58.tinypic.com/2v0mp94.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 03:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3aa70a84-226a-4a99-8787-9a48076eafb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398586 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 11:26:23 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Since this hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time (of the > observer), there is a different 'sheet' for every observer, hence a > different big bang. > > TH I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. First, the universe originating from a point is ridiculously unphysical. Second, the concept of inflation is almost as ridiculous: “Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me… I rapidly formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went along” -- Neil Turok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 07:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <899a33db-cc5e-4a53-bed5-e394abef7a83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398596 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:44:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. First, > the universe originating from a point is ridiculously unphysical. This is not what the SM says. You need to LEARN a subject before you start arguing against it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 11:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38141bac-f98f-493b-ba1c-ef95da484ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398604 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:09:54 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:44:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. First, > > the universe originating from a point is ridiculously unphysical. > > This is not what the SM says. Yes, it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." > You need to LEARN a subject before you start arguing against it. I have, but YOU haven't. If you want to discuss a subject, do so instead of trying to defecate on people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 14:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e2c2038a-0729-4176-993f-c34924562326@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398627 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:09:54 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:44:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. First, > > > the universe originating from a point is ridiculously unphysical. > > > > This is not what the SM says. > > Yes, it is: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, > the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". > > You need to LEARN a subject before you start arguing against it. > > I have, but YOU haven't. No, you are the same old fart pretender you've always been.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 18:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <314bd3e5-105a-499f-b192-8e388a4aaa25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398638 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:36:19 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:09:54 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:44:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. > > > > First, the universe originating from a point is ridiculously > > > > unphysical. > > > > > > This is not what the SM says. > > > > Yes, it is: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > > > "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density > > regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with > > the Big Bang." > > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". You're quibbling. > > > You need to LEARN a subject before you start arguing against it. > > > > I have, but YOU haven't. > > No, you are the same old fart pretender you've always been. Stop being a troll and try to be a decent human being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca46c468-d524-432b-9b0a-0c3c472ed2ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398643 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 6:57:42 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:36:19 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:09:54 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:44:05 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe in the Big Bang as described by the standard model. > > > > > First, the universe originating from a point is ridiculously > > > > > unphysical. > > > > > > > > This is not what the SM says. > > > > > > Yes, it is: > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > > > > > > "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density > > > regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with > > > the Big Bang." > > > > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". > > You're quibbling. > No, old fart, I am simply pointing out the idiocy in your post and your arrogance in terms of disagreeing with the SM. > > > > You need to LEARN a subject before you start arguing against it. > > > > > > I have, but YOU haven't. > > > > No, you are the same old fart pretender you've always been. > > Stop being a troll and try to be a decent human being. Continue being a pretender and you will continue to get your ass kicked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 19:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ac47393-7381-4a35-932d-b21ea9652f46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398638 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:36:19 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". There are sources out there that say you are wrong; for example... http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/86-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/general-questions/441-what-is-a-singularity-beginner "... at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 20:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3a3ee13f-2137-4e8e-9940-e19f73a534f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398645 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:36:19 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". > > There are sources out there that say you are wrong; for example... > > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/86-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/general-questions/441-what-is-a-singularity-beginner > > "... at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the > density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). > Hence it is a singularity. Thank you, Paul. A region of zero volume is a point. The quibbler is just a poor loser who has delusions of grandeur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 20:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8f809ea1-ba4f-4161-ba05-644e202b0084@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398646 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:09:15 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:36:19 PM UTC-8, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > The "singularity" does not represent "a point". > > > > There are sources out there that say you are wrong; for example... > > > > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/86-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/general-questions/441-what-is-a-singularity-beginner > > > > "... at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the > > density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). > > Hence it is a singularity. > > Thank you, Paul. A region of zero volume is a point. The quibbler is just > a poor loser who has delusions of grandeur. ...say the crackpot who "disagrees" with the SM.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web