Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424326 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 558 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:50 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 16:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-10 19:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 11:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 11:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 10:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 13:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-12 21:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 09:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:41 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 19:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 22:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 10:46 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Laverne Chandler <uunvvnh@ewdnrawe.ee> - 2017-07-12 22:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-15 08:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 18:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-16 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-16 11:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 09:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-16 16:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 20:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 09:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 15:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Huuouka Tokoji <ktukjoau@huywkoyu.uu> - 2017-07-23 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:11 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 22:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 20:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 01:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 20:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 12:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 15:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 05:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:22 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-24 20:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-24 09:16 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 08:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 23:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 09:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-29 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 13:57 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-31 10:43 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-01 11:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 21:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-21 19:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-22 15:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-23 16:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-07-26 17:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 11:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 08:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 18:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 19:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 02:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 03:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 20:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:51 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-02 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 20:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 08:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 03:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:08 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 05:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 00:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 16:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-05 07:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-06 09:02 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-05 19:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 04:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 14:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 06:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 08:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 15:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-08 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 15:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:45 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 07:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 19:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 19:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 05:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:14 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-10 21:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 06:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 20:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-11 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:17 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 01:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-09 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 08:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 11:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 05:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 15:50 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-10 17:11 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-11 12:05 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:24 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-13 10:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 10:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:34 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:13 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:29 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 18:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:25 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 15:02 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 09:52 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-12 16:39 -0400
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:30 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 05:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Prudence Oppenheimer <phow@innfldo.sp> - 2017-08-14 19:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-14 15:42 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-15 10:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-15 09:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-13 19:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 06:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:19 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 17:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:50 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 07:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:54 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:01 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-15 11:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:33 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 10:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 14:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 23:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-15 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 11:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 15:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 20:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-17 05:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-18 03:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 00:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 09:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-18 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 09:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-17 08:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-16 19:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-13 23:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 23:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 01:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:55 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 23:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 07:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 03:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 20:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-08 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 23:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:54 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 09:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 17:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-07 05:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:53 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 18:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 20:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 12:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 04:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 21:39 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 11:07 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 22:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-29 16:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 17:28 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 21:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 15:47 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 04:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 22:34 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 15:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 20:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:05 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 14:44 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 15:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 11:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 06:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-03 13:19 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 01:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 23:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 21:55 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:00 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 09:30 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 12:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-30 20:43 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-31 11:20 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:35 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-30 23:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-01 11:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 03:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 18:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-01 10:58 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 02:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-02 22:04 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 08:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 11:57 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 12:26 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 21:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 15:31 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 14:13 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 16:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-06 13:03 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-07 10:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 08:59 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:16 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:00 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 19:10 +0200
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-25 09:32 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 10:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:03 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-26 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:18 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:48 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:10 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-26 13:15 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 20:27 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 12:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-27 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 10:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 01:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-28 18:49 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 14:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 09:21 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-31 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 05:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 09:46 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 07:09 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 15:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-03 10:06 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:25 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-05 08:37 +1000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:05 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 07:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's RoS Exposed as Blatant Fake. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:31 -0700
Page 22 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 28 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98b0dc9b-8195-4e30-a98a-6d555d33f112@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427575 |
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:53:26 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 07/08/17 10:53, kenseto wrote: > > >>> You are wrong.......the completion of a cycle of the Cs 133 atom is > >>> dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy from the > >>> aether (the E-matrix) which ,in turn, is dependent on the arrival > >>> speed of the incoming energy (light) from the aether (the E-Matrix) > >>> which, in turn, is dependent on the absolute motion of the Cs clock > >>> in the aether (the E-Matrix). The higher is the absolute motion of > >>> the Cs 133 clock the higher amount of absolute time to complete a > >>> transition and thus the slower rate is the Cs 133 clock to accumulate > >>> clock seconds. > >> > >> Ken, if you can produce any evidence for an aether, then your theory > >> might have some credibility....but so far, no such evidence has been > >> forthcoming. > > > > Lots of evidences.....Read the paper in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > Can't see any evidence there, Ken. Read the section that says that past experiments detecting absolute motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 08:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <omar15$1q5v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427600 |
On 07/08/17 22:43, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:53:26 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: >> On 07/08/17 10:53, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> You are wrong.......the completion of a cycle of the Cs 133 atom is >>>>> dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy from the >>>>> aether (the E-matrix) which ,in turn, is dependent on the arrival >>>>> speed of the incoming energy (light) from the aether (the E-Matrix) >>>>> which, in turn, is dependent on the absolute motion of the Cs clock >>>>> in the aether (the E-Matrix). The higher is the absolute motion of >>>>> the Cs 133 clock the higher amount of absolute time to complete a >>>>> transition and thus the slower rate is the Cs 133 clock to accumulate >>>>> clock seconds. >>>> >>>> Ken, if you can produce any evidence for an aether, then your theory >>>> might have some credibility....but so far, no such evidence has been >>>> forthcoming. >>> >>> Lots of evidences.....Read the paper in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> Can't see any evidence there, Ken. > > Read the section that says that past experiments detecting absolute motion. I did.. definitely no evidence there. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olt4a4$unl$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426848 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 01/08/17 20:48, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 5:15:55 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: >>> So where does that leave you after you read this: www.scisite.info/ros.html >> >> Why would I read ANYTHING written by a dishonst ignoramus who photoshopped >> his diploma? >OK. I'll come clean. I admit I DID borrow the late Rabbo's degree and >diploma and alter his name to mine. I did that because mine, which were >actually the same, were lost in a fire. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ralph, so now your degree was lost in a fire? Back in January, you said it was lost in a move, Ralph! So which is it, Ralph? Lost in a move or lost in a fire? And why not just request a replacement from the university? Message-ID: <o5ra2l$1h6s$1@gioia.aioe.org> Subject: Re: Einstein Worship is an Early Sign of Dementia. Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:11:49 +1100 |On 19/01/17 08:55, Michael Moroney wrote: | |> |>> I have already admitted to having copied the documents of my late friend |>> and colleague Rabbo and changed the names on them. Do you still want to |>> argue? |> |> No, Henry. You have admitted to photoshopping the diploma. Which shows |> you are no physicist, Henry. So why do you claim to be a "Dr. Wilson", |> and a physicist if you admit to photoshopping the only diploma you have? | |If you like I will try to borrow old Rabbo's certificates again from his |son so I can show you. Mine were similar but were lost somehow during a |move. Ralph. Malcolm. Rabbidge. Busted. Big. Time. Liar. Hey, I know what must have happened, Ralph! The moving van with your diploma got lost in the outback, but was just recently (after Jan 20, 2017) found, burnt beyond recognition, as it was set ablaze by arsonist wallabies! What will your next excuse be, Ralph? "My wombat ate my diploma." ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 06:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <olteag$o49$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426951 |
On 03/08/17 04:05, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >>> Why would I read ANYTHING written by a dishonst ignoramus who photoshopped >>> his diploma? > >> OK. I'll come clean. I admit I DID borrow the late Rabbo's degree and >> diploma and alter his name to mine. I did that because mine, which were >> actually the same, were lost in a fire. > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Ralph, so now your degree was lost in a fire? Back in January, you said it > was lost in a move, Ralph! > > So which is it, Henry? Lost in a move or lost in a fire? > And why not just request a replacement from the university? Didn't you read about that removalist truck that crashed into a tree and caught fire in 1997? I lost everything including one of Bodkin's antique wooden tables. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olvfee$1s4v$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426967 |
On 8/2/17 3:56 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 03/08/17 04:05, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > >>>> Why would I read ANYTHING written by a dishonst ignoramus who >>>> photoshopped >>>> his diploma? >> >>> OK. I'll come clean. I admit I DID borrow the late Rabbo's degree and >>> diploma and alter his name to mine. I did that because mine, which were >>> actually the same, were lost in a fire. >> >> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> Ralph, so now your degree was lost in a fire? Back in January, you >> said it >> was lost in a move, Ralph! >> >> So which is it, Henry? Lost in a move or lost in a fire? >> And why not just request a replacement from the university? > > Didn't you read about that removalist truck that crashed into a tree and > caught fire in 1997? I lost everything including one of Bodkin's antique > wooden tables. > > > Mike, Henry is just letting you know here that he's going to continue to lie. It's just something he enjoys and it doesn't bother him a whit. No dignity remaining, you see. Hasn't had any for a long time. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om2k1a$g5l$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #427058 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 8/2/17 3:56 PM, HGW... wrote: >> On 03/08/17 04:05, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> >>> Ralph, so now your degree was lost in a fire? Back in January, you >>> said it >>> was lost in a move, Ralph! >>> >>> So which is it, Henry? Lost in a move or lost in a fire? >>> And why not just request a replacement from the university? >> >> Didn't you read about that removalist truck that crashed into a tree and >> caught fire in 1997? I lost everything including one of Bodkin's antique >> wooden tables. >Mike, Henry is just letting you know here that he's going to continue to >lie. It's just something he enjoys and it doesn't bother him a whit. No >dignity remaining, you see. Hasn't had any for a long time. Oh, I know that. It appears to me that Ralph/Henry has some sort of multiple personality disorder. The "Ralph" personality is permanently suppressed, and "Henry" has to rationalize having a diploma, but it doesn't exist in that name. So he makes up stories like the "lost in a move"/"fire" but he got caught lying like a naughty 5 year old kid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f31d47e-463f-422a-85b5-7d00267b9e40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426486 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:56:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:03:34 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:57:41 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:20:17 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, show the proof of what you say. Einstein said the clock in S' > > > > was slower. > > > > > > There's the proof that you don't have any memory cells. You've had it > > > explained to you that E was wrong about this, but you still keep pulling > > > that dog poop out of your rear end. > > > > > > > Scientists put clocks on airplanes to prove that the clock in S' was > > > > slower. > > > > > > They didn't measure it during the trips, dog poop spreader. > > > > > > > Now you come along and say it is MEASURED as being slower. > > > > > > This isn't the first time you've been told this, Alzheimer brain. > > > > > > > What do you mean it is MEASURED as being slower? > > > > > > You don't know what "measure" means? Wow! What the heck are you even DOING > > > on a physics board? > > > > > > > [Deranged bullshit deleted] > > > > I am asking you what you mean by "measure". > > Man, you are one lazy fool! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement > > > I gave you the information. A clock was flown in an airplane. A clock was > > left on the ground. After the flight of the plane, the airplane clock > > registered less or more time than the clock left on the ground. > > You are correct: THAT is information. > > > I say the clock had a different rate than the clock left on the ground. > > And THAT you just pulled out of your rear end. THAT was not measured. > > > You say it was MEASURED as being slower or faster. > > No, it CAN BE measured as such according to SR. It was not measured > in that particular experiment. > > > So what do you mean by MEASURED? > > It seems like an easy and simple question to me. > > It's not all that simple, but you seem to be able to come up with wrong > conclusions by being simplistic. > > "Measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object > or event, which can be compared with other objects or events" > > Got it, or is it too complicated for you? OK, so we assigned two numbers to the times of the two clocks when they were reunited after the flight of the airplane. So tell me about the other events that took place from the start of the flight to the end of the flight to which two times could not have been assigned to the two clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42e8d593-07cb-4ec7-9d5d-93fa0e848805@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426385 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:20:17 PM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:22:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:23:32 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one > > > objected. > > > > That was 112 years ago. Get conscious! > > > > > I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. > > > There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in > > > motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. > > > > It is MEASURED as being slower... and the clock in S is MEASURED as being > > slower than the one in S'. Uh oh! Your delusional bull plop is revealed. > > > > > A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, > > > > It's not. > > > > > is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? > > > See, that was not so difficult, was it? > > > > What's difficult is finding a memory cell in your brain. > > Well, show the proof of what you say. Einstein said the clock in S' was slower. Scientists put clocks on airplanes to prove that the clock in S' was slower. Now you come along and say it is MEASURED as being slower. What do you mean it is MEASURED as being slower? > Go ahead and tell us what you mean when you say it is MEASURED as being slower. Einstein said the clock in S' is slower. Scientists said the >clock in S' is slower. Now you come along and say it is MEASURED as >being >slower. Go ahead and explain your terminology. No such MEASUREMENT is possible......they interchange PREDICTION with MEASUREMENT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 09:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <etvbgjFpcblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426289 |
On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>> >>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>> motions matter. >>>> >>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>> >>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>> >>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>> postulate is wrong. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>> >> >> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >> >> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >> thought experiment. >> >> Sylvia. > > Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? > See, that was not so difficult, was it? > You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no purpose. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <113237ec-db5d-4809-bd8c-341ac8df49b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426380 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just
> >>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that
> >>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the
> >>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found
> >>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they
> >>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected
> >>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong,
> >>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one
> >>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the
> >>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation
> >>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are
> >>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that
> >>>>>>> requirement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics
> >>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all
> >>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive.
> >>>>
> >>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
> >>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics
> >>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative
> >>>> motions matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant
> >>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then
> >>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the
> >>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by
> >>>> applying mathematics to the postulate.
> >>>>
> >>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the
> >>>> postulate is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground.
> >>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what
> >> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly
> >> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field.
> >>
> >> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly
> >> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your
> >> thought experiment.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'?
> > See, that was not so difficult, was it?
> >
>
> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are
> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required
> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no
> purpose.
>
> Sylvia.
What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are:
y'=y
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 12:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <etvkbuFr3u3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426387 |
On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>>>> motions matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>>>> postulate is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >>>> >>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >>>> thought experiment. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? >>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? >>> >> >> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are >> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required >> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no >> purpose. >> >> Sylvia. > > What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: > > y'=y > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? > If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that you claim is different in the two frames. There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame independent, and indeed they are not. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 04:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe9caa05-ec3a-403d-97c3-dbc2a99a636f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426391 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just > >>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that > >>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the > >>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found > >>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they > >>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected > >>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, > >>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one > >>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the > >>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation > >>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are > >>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that > >>>>>>>>> requirement. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics > >>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all > >>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving > >>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics > >>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative > >>>>>> motions matter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant > >>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then > >>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the > >>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by > >>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the > >>>>>> postulate is wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. > >>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what > >>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly > >>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. > >>>> > >>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly > >>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your > >>>> thought experiment. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? > >>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? > >>> > >> > >> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are > >> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required > >> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no > >> purpose. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: > > > > y'=y > > t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? > > > If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether > the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you > can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that > you claim is different in the two frames. > > There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame > independent, and indeed they are not. > > Sylvia. So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 21:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu0m40F3rvmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426431 |
On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>>>>>> motions matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >>>>>> >>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >>>>>> thought experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? >>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are >>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required >>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no >>>> purpose. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: >>> >>> y'=y >>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>> >>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? >>> >> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether >> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you >> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that >> you claim is different in the two frames. >> >> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame >> independent, and indeed they are not. >> >> Sylvia. > > So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. > No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, though it still won't support your contention. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6e05008-d02b-414c-9d7c-814185f3355a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426433 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation
> >>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are
> >>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that
> >>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics
> >>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all
> >>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
> >>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics
> >>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative
> >>>>>>>> motions matter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant
> >>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then
> >>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the
> >>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by
> >>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the
> >>>>>>>> postulate is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground.
> >>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what
> >>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly
> >>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly
> >>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your
> >>>>>> thought experiment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'?
> >>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are
> >>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required
> >>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no
> >>>> purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are:
> >>>
> >>> y'=y
> >>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>>
> >>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it?
> >>>
> >> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether
> >> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you
> >> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that
> >> you claim is different in the two frames.
> >>
> >> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame
> >> independent, and indeed they are not.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics.
> >
>
> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and
> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law
> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get
> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense,
> though it still won't support your contention.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it.
The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has.
So how does that relate to modern science?
It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from.
Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time.
At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 11:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu25drFefm4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426436 |
On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>>>>>>>> motions matter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>>>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >>>>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >>>>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >>>>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >>>>>>>> thought experiment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? >>>>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are >>>>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required >>>>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no >>>>>> purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: >>>>> >>>>> y'=y >>>>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>> >>>>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? >>>>> >>>> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether >>>> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you >>>> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that >>>> you claim is different in the two frames. >>>> >>>> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame >>>> independent, and indeed they are not. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. >>> >> >> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and >> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law >> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get >> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, >> though it still won't support your contention. >> >> Sylvia. > > Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. I don't know how you reach that idea from what I said. >That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it. > The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has. That is one outcome, but it's not what the law is, and it doesn't have any relevance to your thought experiment. > So how does that relate to modern science? > It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from. So would the moon. In any frame the baseball and the moon would have the same speed. > Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time. > At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over. > It's apparent that you really have no idea what the law of gravitation says, and this bluster is your attempt get round the fact that you thought you'd spotted an issue with relativity and were arrogant enough to suppose that it had somehow been overlooked by great minds for over a century. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 22:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d522fcd-7093-430d-83c1-acd5bcd94b9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426498 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics > >>>>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all > >>>>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving > >>>>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics > >>>>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative > >>>>>>>>>> motions matter. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant > >>>>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then > >>>>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the > >>>>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by > >>>>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the > >>>>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. > >>>>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what > >>>>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly > >>>>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly > >>>>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your > >>>>>>>> thought experiment. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? > >>>>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are > >>>>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required > >>>>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no > >>>>>> purpose. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: > >>>>> > >>>>> y'=y > >>>>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > >>>>> > >>>>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? > >>>>> > >>>> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether > >>>> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you > >>>> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that > >>>> you claim is different in the two frames. > >>>> > >>>> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame > >>>> independent, and indeed they are not. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. > >>> > >> > >> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and > >> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law > >> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get > >> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, > >> though it still won't support your contention. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. > > I don't know how you reach that idea from what I said. > > >That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it. > > The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has. > > That is one outcome, but it's not what the law is, and it doesn't have > any relevance to your thought experiment. > > > So how does that relate to modern science? > > It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from. > > So would the moon. In any frame the baseball and the moon would have the > same speed. > > > Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time. > > At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over. > > > > It's apparent that you really have no idea what the law of gravitation > says, and this bluster is your attempt get round the fact that you > thought you'd spotted an issue with relativity and were arrogant enough > to suppose that it had somehow been overlooked by great minds for over a > century. > > Sylvia. The minds you call great do not overlook things. They just evaluate things and put them into categories. As far as scientists of today are concerned, the category that interests them is the category from which they obtain the most money from governments for what they call "research". Obviously, equations that scientists threw away 140 years ago are not going to be in the category that interests them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 16:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu2n7hFi0meU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426505 |
On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>>>>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>>>>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>>>>>>>>>> motions matter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>>>>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>>>>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>>>>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>>>>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>>>>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>>>>>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >>>>>>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >>>>>>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >>>>>>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >>>>>>>>>> thought experiment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? >>>>>>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are >>>>>>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required >>>>>>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no >>>>>>>> purpose. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> y'=y >>>>>>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether >>>>>> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you >>>>>> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that >>>>>> you claim is different in the two frames. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame >>>>>> independent, and indeed they are not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and >>>> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law >>>> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get >>>> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, >>>> though it still won't support your contention. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. >> >> I don't know how you reach that idea from what I said. >> >>> That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it. >>> The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has. >> >> That is one outcome, but it's not what the law is, and it doesn't have >> any relevance to your thought experiment. >> >>> So how does that relate to modern science? >>> It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from. >> >> So would the moon. In any frame the baseball and the moon would have the >> same speed. >> >>> Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time. >>> At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity. >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over. >>> >> >> It's apparent that you really have no idea what the law of gravitation >> says, and this bluster is your attempt get round the fact that you >> thought you'd spotted an issue with relativity and were arrogant enough >> to suppose that it had somehow been overlooked by great minds for over a >> century. >> >> Sylvia. > > The minds you call great do not overlook things. They just evaluate things and put them into categories. As far as scientists of today are concerned, the category that interests them is the category from which they obtain the most money from governments for what they call "research". Obviously, equations that scientists threw away 140 years ago are not going to be in the category that interests them. > I take it you've abandoned this claim "The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is." in favour of a general rant. Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under gravity[*] Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective train floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be for each observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction between the events. If I were a relativity denier, I'd now be going on about how the situation is symmetrical (which it is), and how I'd found a huge contradiction in special relativity (which I haven't). Over to you. Sylvia. [*] I was toying with you earlier - while the observers are not inertial, they don't move up or down in the gravitational field, so gravity doesn't matter for this purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72a7de05-ec5f-4330-b4d7-b5fc3f1772aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426506 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all > >>>>>>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics > >>>>>>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative > >>>>>>>>>>>> motions matter. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant > >>>>>>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then > >>>>>>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the > >>>>>>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by > >>>>>>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. > >>>>>>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what > >>>>>>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly > >>>>>>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly > >>>>>>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your > >>>>>>>>>> thought experiment. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? > >>>>>>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are > >>>>>>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required > >>>>>>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no > >>>>>>>> purpose. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> y'=y > >>>>>>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether > >>>>>> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you > >>>>>> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that > >>>>>> you claim is different in the two frames. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame > >>>>>> independent, and indeed they are not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and > >>>> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law > >>>> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get > >>>> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, > >>>> though it still won't support your contention. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. > >> > >> I don't know how you reach that idea from what I said. > >> > >>> That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it. > >>> The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has. > >> > >> That is one outcome, but it's not what the law is, and it doesn't have > >> any relevance to your thought experiment. > >> > >>> So how does that relate to modern science? > >>> It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from. > >> > >> So would the moon. In any frame the baseball and the moon would have the > >> same speed. > >> > >>> Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time. > >>> At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity. > >>> > >>> x'=x-vt > >>> y'=y > >>> z'=z > >>> t'=t > >>> Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over. > >>> > >> > >> It's apparent that you really have no idea what the law of gravitation > >> says, and this bluster is your attempt get round the fact that you > >> thought you'd spotted an issue with relativity and were arrogant enough > >> to suppose that it had somehow been overlooked by great minds for over a > >> century. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The minds you call great do not overlook things. They just evaluate things and put them into categories. As far as scientists of today are concerned, the category that interests them is the category from which they obtain the most money from governments for what they call "research". Obviously, equations that scientists threw away 140 years ago are not going to be in the category that interests them. > > > > I take it you've abandoned this claim > > "The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of > gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the > ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two > frames of reference. That is just the way it is." > > in favour of a general rant. > > Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a > ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings > the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under > gravity[*] Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective > train floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be for each > observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one > frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction > between the events. > > If I were a relativity denier, I'd now be going on about how the > situation is symmetrical (which it is), and how I'd found a huge > contradiction in special relativity (which I haven't). > > Over to you. > > Sylvia. > > [*] I was toying with you earlier - while the observers are not > inertial, they don't move up or down in the gravitational field, so > gravity doesn't matter for this purpose. Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. What you people in science are doing is using two different rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length contraction. It is no different from what would happen if you took the time it takes for earth to rotate on its axis and the time it takes for Mars to rotate on its axis and set those two times equal to each other because they are both rotations of a planet and are both called days. Then you discover that you have a length contraction. Instead, what scientists do is define a second as a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom instead of a fraction of the time it takes for a planet to rotate on its axis, the way Galileo calculated the time of a second. The difference between you and Galileo is that he could watch Jupiter through his telescope and determine that a day on Jupiter was not the same amount of time as a day on earth. So now scientists since Einstein say that a clock in S' is slower, and a second on a slower clock and a faster clock are the same amount of time, whereas, the Galilean transformation equations say that a second of a slower clock is more time than a second of a faster clock. So if you really wanted to discuss relativity, you would discuss your definition of a second, which is something I have discovered no scientist will do. That being the case, go ahead with your propaganda, but I stopped believing it long ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-30 12:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eu4uf1F35dkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #426532 |
On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 28/07/2017 9:06 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:03:47 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28/07/2017 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:32:40 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2017 11:23 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:41 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 1:25 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/17 16:55, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/07/2017 11:24 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll still be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am not wrong, and I do not ignore a century of research. I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the mathematics correctly. Einstein's revolutionary idea was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a "time dilation", in other words, a slower clock in S', the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference in motion. Scientists tested his idea and found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that clocks did slow down when placed in motion. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimented some more and found that clocks speeded up if subjected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to less gravitation. So they concluded that Isaac Newton was wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and clocks that were working correctly did not all agree with one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another as Newton believed in his absolute time interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations were thrown into the trash. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein showed what the equations have to be if the laws of physics are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the same in all inertial frames. Your equations don't satisfy that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are dingleberries so plainly dumb? The fact that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same does not mean the parameter VALUES have to be the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, well, I did not know. Scientists just seem to make up whatever rules they think they need to have as they go along. I like Galileo, though. He was right about the earth rotating on its axis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists try to discover what the rules are. It's not always at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious, and sometimes the rules turn out to be highly counter-intuitive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The preamble to Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodies" shows why he was motivated to postulate that the laws of physics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be the same for all inertial observers and that only relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motions matter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments already indicated that the speed of light was constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which would have to be true for the postulate to stand). Einstein then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that the postulate unavoidably leads to the Lorentz transformation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the Lorentz transformation is the rule if the laws of physics are the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same for all inertial observers. It is not "made up", but is deduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying mathematics to the postulate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not like it, but the only way to avoid it is to show that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> postulate is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I already did, which you ignored. So I will demonstrate again. Suppose we have a railroad car in motion. We drop a ball from the top of the railroad car to the floor. We time the descent of the ball using two clocks, one inside the railroad car and one on the ground beside the railroad track. Einstein says that the clock in the railroad car is slower than the clock on the ground. So, according to the clock in the railroad car, the ball is falling faster than it is according to the clock on the ground. >>>>>>>>>>>>> So go ahead and wave your hands again. Say some meaningless scientific jargon. The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two frames of reference. That is just the way it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The key to this is the word "inertial". Apparently you don't know what >>>>>>>>>>>> it means, because the clocks in your thought experiment are manifestly >>>>>>>>>>>> NOT in inertial frames since they're sitting in a gravitational field. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The requirement that the laws of physics be the same was expressly >>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to inertial frames, and does not apply to the clocks in your >>>>>>>>>>>> thought experiment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein used trains in his thought experiments all the time, and no one objected. I could have just said two frames of reference S and S', so let's do that. There is a frame of reference S at rest and a frame of reference S' in motion in the +x direction. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. A ball is accelerating in the -y direction in S at 32 feet per second per second. If the clock in S' is slower, is it also accelerating at 32 feet per second per second in S'? >>>>>>>>>>> See, that was not so difficult, was it? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You've eliminated gravity from the scenario, so now your observers are >>>>>>>>>> inertial, but you've also eliminated the law of physics that is required >>>>>>>>>> to be the same for both observers, so your thought experiment serves no >>>>>>>>>> purpose. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean it serves no purpose? A ball is falling at 32 feet per second per second in S. It is falling faster in S'. The equations that give us that result are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> y'=y >>>>>>>>> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A clock in S' MEASURES less time than a clock in S, as Gary Harnagel would say. Einstein said that the Lorentz equations describe a gravitationless system. Well, but if something is moving in the -y direction, then we can say there must be a reason. The Lorentz equations give two speeds for something moving in that direction, one in S and one in S'. So how do you explain it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you look back up the post a bit, you'll see that the issue is whether >>>>>>>> the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. So before you >>>>>>>> can advance your position, you have to identify the law of physics that >>>>>>>> you claim is different in the two frames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no law of physics that says that accelerations are frame >>>>>>>> independent, and indeed they are not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you are saying that gravitation is not a law of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I'm not saying that, but you're conflating gravitation and >>>>>> acceleration, most likely because you don't know what the physical law >>>>>> of gravitation actually says. When you're read up on that, you might get >>>>>> closer to proposing a thought experiment that at least makes some sense, >>>>>> though it still won't support your contention. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Well, OK, so you do not want to discuss gravitation. >>>> >>>> I don't know how you reach that idea from what I said. >>>> >>>>> That was what I thought. There was a time when scientists were willing to discuss that particular subject. Isaac Newton wrote books about it. >>>>> The physical law of gravitation actually says that if you put a baseball in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the moon, the baseball will have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has. >>>> >>>> That is one outcome, but it's not what the law is, and it doesn't have >>>> any relevance to your thought experiment. >>>> >>>>> So how does that relate to modern science? >>>>> It doesn't because the baseball would have different velocities depending on what frame of reference the velocities were calculated from. >>>> >>>> So would the moon. In any frame the baseball and the moon would have the >>>> same speed. >>>> >>>>> Newton's idea was that the moon was falling toward the earth at exactly the velocity that would offset the centripetal force of the moon in its orbit. To find the force of gravitation, all he had to do was find an equation that would work for the moon and a baseball. Modern scientists cannot do that because velocity, acceleration, gravitation, etc., are not physical laws if they do not agree with the propaganda scientists are using at this particular time. >>>>> At any rate, here are the correct equations for relativity. >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>> y'=y >>>>> z'=z >>>>> t'=t >>>>> Since scientists threw these equations in the garbage 140 years ago, this conversation is probably over. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's apparent that you really have no idea what the law of gravitation >>>> says, and this bluster is your attempt get round the fact that you >>>> thought you'd spotted an issue with relativity and were arrogant enough >>>> to suppose that it had somehow been overlooked by great minds for over a >>>> century. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The minds you call great do not overlook things. They just evaluate things and put them into categories. As far as scientists of today are concerned, the category that interests them is the category from which they obtain the most money from governments for what they call "research". Obviously, equations that scientists threw away 140 years ago are not going to be in the category that interests them. >>> >> >> I take it you've abandoned this claim >> >> "The fact remains that according to Einstein's mathematics, the law of >> gravitation is not the same in the moving railroad car as it is on the >> ground. So all of the laws of physics are not the same in the two >> frames of reference. That is just the way it is." >> >> in favour of a general rant. >> >> Consider two trains in relative movement. Each has an observer and a >> ball which is initially held high. When the motion of the trains brings >> the balls next to each other, the balls are released to fall under >> gravity[*] Now, you might expect the balls to land on the respective >> train floors simultaneously. Problem is, that would have to be for each >> observer, and spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one >> frame cannot be simultaneous in a frame that has motion in the direction >> between the events. >> >> If I were a relativity denier, I'd now be going on about how the >> situation is symmetrical (which it is), and how I'd found a huge >> contradiction in special relativity (which I haven't). >> >> Over to you. >> >> Sylvia. >> >> [*] I was toying with you earlier - while the observers are not >> inertial, they don't move up or down in the gravitational field, so >> gravity doesn't matter for this purpose. > > Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. What you people in science are doing is using two different rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length contraction. Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've described it? It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land simultaneously for one observer, they cannot possibly land simultaneously for the other, so the two observers cannot possibly see the same outcome. No amount of fudging with the definition of the second or hand waving about length contraction will address that. The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your claimed expertise, you're blind to it. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 23:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0f9989e-b359-4d46-bb0f-a328036cf0d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426580 |
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/07/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:11:02 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 29/07/2017 3:48 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:07:11 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 28/07/2017 11:16 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, > > Well, I was not toying with you. I discussed this with a university professor years ago. There is no contradiction. What you people in science are doing is using two different rates of time in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. > What happens when you do that is that you end up with a length > contraction. > > Really - you see no contradiction in the scenario as I've described it? > It's totally symmetrical yet if the balls land simultaneously for one > observer, they cannot possibly land simultaneously for the other, so the > two observers cannot possibly see the same outcome. No amount of > fudging with the definition of the second or hand waving about length > contraction will address that. > > The resolution, of course, is quite obvious, but despite your claimed > expertise, you're blind to it. > > Sylvia. The two observers cannot possibly see anything but the same outcome. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S no matter which observer is measuring the times of the clocks. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. If two events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, they are simultaneous in the other. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. Did I mention that the Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations to describe relativity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 22 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web