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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 20:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31554c8f-bd43-47ce-92cf-0b2ace53f207@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398645 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-8, 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. The singularity of a black hole is not the same singularity as the one in the SM description of the BB. If you try to do physics by cherry-picking , don't wonder that you get embarrassed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 04:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ad12dfe-256e-4d05-95b2-d85877d72c7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398647 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 9:10:39 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-8, 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. > > The singularity of a black hole is not the same singularity as the one in > the SM description of the BB. If you try to do physics by cherry-picking , > don't wonder that you get embarrassed. You're quibbling again. You're acting like a disagreeable troll. "One of the truest signs of maturity is the ability to disagree with someone while still remaining respectful." -- Dave Willis > say the crackpot who "disagrees" with the SM It's not just crackpots that disagree with the SM, as I showed by the quote from Neil Turok. The SM is based on GR, which accepts space-time as an underlying something that can be bent and stretched, but ... “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite different.” – Steven Carlip “we can ask ourselves whether there is a raw precursor to the fabric of spacetime – a configuration of the strings of the cosmic fabric in which they have not yet coalesced into the organized form that we recognize as spacetime. – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe GR has experienced spectacular success locally, agreeing with experiments performed within our solar system, but there are problems when we look beyond our little spot in the universe. Does dark matter REALLY exist or does conventional gravity theory fail? If DM does exist, what is it? It doesn't appear to be anything described in the Standard Model of QM. “Dubium sapientiae initium. (Doubt is the origin of wisdom.)” ― René Descartes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b472ada1-2566-42a8-bad6-b4ac8b9d3fad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398683 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:43:38 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 9:10:39 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-8, 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. > > > > The singularity of a black hole is not the same singularity as the one in > > the SM description of the BB. If you try to do physics by cherry-picking , > > don't wonder that you get embarrassed. > > You're quibbling again. I am simply exposing you as a pretender that is ignorant what SM ACTUALLY says, while you are also claiming to disagree with SM. You don't know what SM says, yet you have the arrogance to claim that you disagree with SM. Look , Gary You are a pretender. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 06:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c7f112f-32da-4b8c-b444-b1f59a230a80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398686 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 7:21:16 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 4:43:38 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 9:10:39 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-8, 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. > > > > > > The singularity of a black hole is not the same singularity as the one in > > > the SM description of the BB. If you try to do physics by cherry-picking , > > > don't wonder that you get embarrassed. > > > > You're quibbling again. > > I am simply exposing you as a pretender No, you're not. You are a deluded individual behaving badly. > that is ignorant what SM ACTUALLY says, It's quite clear that your assertion is false. Read what Tom Roberts wrote. > while you are also claiming to disagree with SM. You don't know what SM > says, yet you have the arrogance to claim that you disagree with SM. > > Look , Gary > > You are a pretender. Live with it. Look Don't Know, you are a silly, ignorant troll. It may be that I once disagreed with something you wrote and you felt slighted by that and have never forgotten it. I'm sorry if you were offended, but that's YOUR problem, not mine. Get over it. “The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem.” – Captain Jack Sparrow
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <965eb602-acdc-46d7-9906-c06dfc27259f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398691 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:57:44 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > Look Don't Know, you are a silly, ignorant troll. It may be that I once > disagreed with something you wrote and you felt slighted by that Not really, it is the imbecilities that you post REGULARLY and the fact that you are a pretender, old deluded fart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <826059df-ab1f-493f-8bb5-d20b5559ece3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398692 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 8:03:01 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:57:44 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Look Don't Know, you are a silly, ignorant troll. It may be that I once > > disagreed with something you wrote and you felt slighted by that > > Not really, it is the imbecilities that you post REGULARLY and the fact > that you are a pretender, old deluded fart. Pot, kettle, black ... old turd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 20:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f30a8db-42e9-4a9b-8d57-d5b6a7b57114@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398645 |
"... 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. Bulk modulus http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html Surface Area of the Schwartz P minimal surface Would be Proportional to Entropy & Proportion to Mass & Proportion to Volume Energy Would be Proportional to the (Tension Loading or UnLoading) from the (Distance of the Stretching) of the Surface Area of the Schwartz P minimal surface. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5 = Velocity ((1 / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 08:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3_Cdnfc0aYcHX7DFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398645 |
On 11/16/16 11/16/16 9:26 PM, pnalsing@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. Hmmm. It is true that any object intersecting a singularity in Schwarzschild spacetime is compressed to zero volume. But the singularities [%] at the center of Schwarzschild spacetime are not points in any meaningful sense. For instance, consider two infalling geodesics that enter the horizon and intersect the singularity there: their limit points [#] can be arbitrarily far apart spatially; the set of all limit points forms a 2-d spacelike surface of infinite area. Of course all such limit points have the same value of the Schw. time coordinate, r=0 [@]. [%] Yes, plural; there are two. [#] Loosely, the limit point of a worldline that intersects the singularity is the point at which it would end if the singularity were part of the manifold. There is a rigorous but complicated definition.... [@] After entering the horizon, using the usual Schw. coordinates, r is timelike, r < 2M, and -d/dr is future-pointing; r=0 is in the future of every point in this region (hence it is impossible to avoid). But that is the singularities of Schw. spacetime; to address the discussion in this thread: the past singularity of the FLRW manifolds (aka "the big bang") has a quite different structure, and the past limit points of all geodesics that emanate from it are identical; so in that sense it is pointlike. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de274739-dd0f-4a5b-9ffa-bf2ae2f1f5d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398690 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
Hmmm. It is true that any object intersecting a singularity in Schwarzschild
spacetime is compressed to zero volume. But the singularities [%] at the center
of Schwarzschild spacetime are not points in any meaningful sense. For instance,
consider two infalling geodesics that enter the horizon and intersect the
singularity there: their limit points [#] can be arbitrarily far apart
spatially; the set of all limit points forms a 2-d spacelike surface of infinite
area. Of course all such limit points have the same value of the Schw. time
coordinate, r=0 [@].
[%] Yes, plural; there are two.
[#] Loosely, the limit point of a worldline that intersects the
singularity is the point at which it would end if the singularity
were part of the manifold. There is a rigorous but complicated
definition....
[@] After entering the horizon, using the usual Schw. coordinates,
r is timelike, r < 2M, and -d/dr is future-pointing; r=0 is in
the future of every point in this region (hence it is impossible
to avoid).
But that is the singularities of Schw. spacetime; to address the discussion in
this thread: the past singularity of the FLRW manifolds (aka "the big bang") has
a quite different structure, and the past limit points of all geodesics that
emanate from it are identical; so in that sense it is pointlike.
Tom Roberts
No ......
Bulk modulus
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?source=mog&gl=us#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/zyftH3vcDgg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 14:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8cd4787a-a5c1-4f63-bc41-daf08c6341f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398714 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:28:20 PM UTC-6, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > Hmmm. It is true that any object intersecting a singularity in Schwarzschild > spacetime is compressed to zero volume. But the singularities [%] at the center > of Schwarzschild spacetime are not points in any meaningful sense. For instance, > consider two infalling geodesics that enter the horizon and intersect the > singularity there: their limit points [#] can be arbitrarily far apart > spatially; the set of all limit points forms a 2-d spacelike surface of infinite > area. Of course all such limit points have the same value of the Schw. time > coordinate, r=0 [@]. > > [%] Yes, plural; there are two. > > [#] Loosely, the limit point of a worldline that intersects the > singularity is the point at which it would end if the singularity > were part of the manifold. There is a rigorous but complicated > definition.... > > [@] After entering the horizon, using the usual Schw. coordinates, > r is timelike, r < 2M, and -d/dr is future-pointing; r=0 is in > the future of every point in this region (hence it is impossible > to avoid). > > But that is the singularities of Schw. spacetime; to address the discussion in > this thread: the past singularity of the FLRW manifolds (aka "the big bang") has > a quite different structure, and the past limit points of all geodesics that > emanate from it are identical; so in that sense it is pointlike. > > Tom Roberts > > No ...... > Bulk modulus > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/zyftH3vcDgg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b8e77eb7-1452-4648-977f-7d768cfe9ebd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398690 |
On November 17, tjrob137 wrote: >> "... at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the >> density is infinite. Hence it is a singularity. > > Hmmm. It is true that any object intersecting a singularity in Schwarzschild > spacetime is compressed to zero volume. But the singularities [%] at the > center of Schwarzschild spacetime are not points in any meaningful sense. > For instance, consider two infalling geodesics that enter the horizon and > intersect the singularity there: their limit points [#] can be arbitrarily > far apart spatially; the set of all limit points forms a 2-d spacelike > surface of infinite area. hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, not a 2-D surface. Can an observer inside detect this axis? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b3d0cb7-6b6c-4379-9deb-601034b909df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398791 |
hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, not a 2-D surface. Can an observer inside detect this axis? -- Rich (-7)^2 + 1 = torus 100-((-7)^2+1) = 100/2 (R r) r = (1-1/R) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html http://i68.tinypic.com/2vw69nd.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f6e4979-6ee9-4b25-a905-57ab05b82ed8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398796 |
hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, not a 2-D surface. Can an observer inside detect this axis? -- Rich (-7)^2 + 1 = torus 100-((-7)^2+1) = 100/2 (R r) r = (1-1/R) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html http://i68.tinypic.com/2vw69nd.jpg 1 / ((1 - (0.5^0.25)) * tau) = 1.00032279817
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 09:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Y8CdnXcegfNm7q3FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398791 |
On 11/18/16 11/18/16 11:29 AM, RichD wrote: > hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires > an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, > not a 2-D surface. When one says "black hole" without further qualification, that is normally interpreted to mean a Schwarzschild black hole. Schw. black holes are spherically symmetric and have zero angular momentum. The Schw. manifold has complete rotational symmetry, but the center of that symmetry is not part of the manifold, it is surrounded by the singularity; the limit points form a spacelike 2-d surface with r=0 -- they behave as the surface of a sphere with zero radius and infinite area, but that's a TIMELIKE radius and a SPACELIKE area [#]. [#] Ordinary geometry does not apply to singularities. Note also that r=0 is using the usual Schw. coordinates, and r is TIMELIKE with r=0 in the FUTURE of any point inside its horizon. There is a second singularity, also with r=0, that is in the PAST of every point inside its horizon. That is, the Schw. manifold has both a black hole and a white hole; they both have horizons at r=2M and are at the center of the spherical symmetry (the two horizons are distinct, even though they have the same value of the Schw. r coordinate -- these coordinates are ill behaved there). So the topology of the Schwarzschild manifold is complicated, strange, and not at all like Euclidean space. There is a solution in GR that is a black hole with nonzero angular momentum called the Kerr solution. It has a definite rotation axis, a pair of horizons, and a ring singularity (in a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis). The two horizons coincide on the axis and vary smoothly to a maximum difference in the plane of the singularity (the "equator"); the inner horizon is a spherical surface of no return (like a Schw. black hole), and between the horizons is a region in which it is impossible for a timelike object to not be dragged by the rotation (the so-called ergosphere). It is possible for a timelike object to enter both horizons, go through the center of the ring singularity along the axis, and emerge into a completely new "universe" that is disconnected from the original one except for the disk inside the ring singularity (which can only be traversed along a future-directed timelike trajectory). Any timelike trajectory that intersects the singularity is crushed to zero volume, but trajectories that traverse its center are not. About your claim of a "point at the center": there is a timelike line with zero spatial extent at the center of a Kerr black hole; it is a normal locus and is also the center of the ring singularity. So the "central point" you imagine is really a timelike line; spatially it acts as if it were a point. So the topology of the Kerr manifold is even stranger and more complicated than that of Schw. spacetime -- it has an infinite number of "universes" connected only by the disks inside an infinite number of ring singularities. > Can an observer inside detect this axis? Yes. As can an observer outside both horizons and one between the horizons. Interested readers can find a non-mathematical but detailed description of these and other manifolds in: K. Thorne, _Black_Holes_&_Time_Warps_. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <490dd0c7-5bd1-416a-9567-d449d7082c6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398930 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 9:47:14 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/18/16 11/18/16 11:29 AM, RichD wrote: > > hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires > > an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, > > not a 2-D surface. > > When one says "black hole" without further qualification, that is normally > interpreted to mean a Schwarzschild black hole. Schw. black holes are > spherically symmetric and have zero angular momentum. The Schw. manifold has > complete rotational symmetry, but the center of that symmetry is not part of the > manifold, it is surrounded by the singularity; the limit points form a spacelike > 2-d surface with r=0 -- they behave as the surface of a sphere with zero radius > and infinite area, but that's a TIMELIKE radius and a SPACELIKE area [#]. (-7)^2 + 1 = torus 100-((-7)^2+1) = 100/2 (R r) r = (1-1/R) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html http://i68.tinypic.com/2vw69nd.jpg 1 / ((1 - (0.5^0.25)) * tau) = 1.00032279817 0.00032279817 is Not of the Singularity 1 + 0.00032279817 = 1.00032279817 http://oi66.tinypic.com/25sy2bm.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 06:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9cr2aF906U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #398930 |
Am 19.11.2016 16:47, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires >> an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, >> not a 2-D surface. > > When one says "black hole" without further qualification, that is > normally interpreted to mean a Schwarzschild black hole. Schw. black > holes are spherically symmetric and have zero angular momentum. The > Schw. manifold has complete rotational symmetry, but the center of that > symmetry is not part of the manifold, it is surrounded by the > singularity; the limit points form a spacelike 2-d surface with r=0 -- > they behave as the surface of a sphere with zero radius and infinite > area, but that's a TIMELIKE radius and a SPACELIKE area [#]. > > [#] Ordinary geometry does not apply to singularities. Note also > that r=0 is using the usual Schw. coordinates, and r is TIMELIKE > with r=0 in the FUTURE of any point inside its horizon. There is > a second singularity, also with r=0, that is in the PAST of every > point inside its horizon. That is, the Schw. manifold has both a > black hole and a white hole; they both have horizons at r=2M and > are at the center of the spherical symmetry (the two horizons > are distinct, even though they have the same value of the Schw. > r coordinate -- these coordinates are ill behaved there). > > So the topology of the Schwarzschild manifold is complicated, strange, > and not at all like Euclidean space. In my understanding a 'black hole' is a region, were the axis of time points away from us. A 'white hole' is the opposite and a region, where the axis of time points towards us. Perpendicular to the axis of time we have the region called 'spacelike'. This hypersheet lies lopsided in our field of vision (our 'universe). A black hole is then the back side of a light cone and the 'jet' is what remains visible from its rim (of its future light cone). The axis of time is usually accompanied with rotation around it, which occurs over the hypersheet of the present (for that remote local axis of time). So we could apply a four-dimensional transformation to that black hole, which rotates the axis of time into the usual direction. Than the Earth would be in the centre of a black hole (seen from there). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 17:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <594d5c5c-5cb9-4d68-a9d6-179487c55450@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398791 |
On Friday, 18 November 2016 17:29:56 UTC, RichD wrote: > ... > hmmm... a black hole has angular momentum, which requires > an axis through the center, which implies a point at the center, > not a 2-D surface. > .. For a black hole to have angular momentum suggests rotation, which would tend to make it a Kerr black hole rather than a Schwarzchild black hole. With a Kerr black hole, the usual classical idealisation of the internal distribution of mass is a ring (with zero thickness but non-zero radius) rather than a point (it's a ring-singularity rather than a point-singularity). Other more exotic forms of mathematical singularity exist which aren't pointlike. OFFSET CENTRES OF GRAVITY: If a bunch of observers are distributed around a simple non-rotating black hole, and each of them is asked to point to the hole's apparent centre of gravity, they'll each point along lines that converge at the same central point. Rather than askign them to point, you could ask them to dangle plumb-lines above the hole and extrapolate the lines made by the strings holding the weights. On the other hand, if the hole rotates, and the observers are all on its equatorial plane, then gravitational dragging will make the apparent centres of gravity no longer coincide - the observers (and the plumb-lines) will point to locations that are away form the hole's "official" centre, and offset towards the more attractive receding side, so that the assumed centres all lie on the perimeter of a circle. Similarly, the associated gravitational lensing effects will make more of the horizon be "seen" (if one can use that word with horizons) to be at the receding side than the approaching side, so it "looks" to each observer as if the horizon radius is greater on the receding side, suggesting an apparent c.o.g. offset. If you followed the earlier argument about approaching objects been seen to be lengthened and receding ones being seen to be contracted, then you'll be able to construct a third, coincident argument: If you look at a rotating sphere from the equatorial plane, and its surface is studded with useful equidistant location markers, then signal timelags will make it seem as if the receding markers are more tightly packed together, so that there seem to be more markers on the receding side than the approaching side – when the markers come into view, they'll first be seen to rapidly approach and then appear to slow down slow down as they recede, apparently "stacking up" toward the receding horizon. So the "visible" distribution of matter is greater towards the receding side, and the sphere's centre of gravity therefore seems as if it should be displaced towards the region where most mass (appears to be) located. Apply that logic to a black hole, and you'll predict an offset in the hole's assumed centre of gravity calculated from "naive" visual readings that's broadly in line with general relativity, without having to know anything about general relativity. Eric Baird https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Baird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bf38305-df7f-45f3-b3af-de3ef86a0696@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396958 |
Thomas Heger wrote: 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. 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 (Spacetime is a REAL THING) = Spacetime Is Kinetic Energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nut4gs$1n6u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396697 |
On 10/24/2016 6:33 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:24:49 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is affected by LC. > It's not, not in the rest frame of the lab. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f734b0a-bcee-4764-b0b0-7e61a6a130ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396929 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:55:27 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/24/2016 6:33 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:24:49 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is affected by LC. > > > > It's not, not in the rest frame of the lab. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Yes, it's not and the null result was caused by the two light paths being equal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web