Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613164 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-17 21:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-09-07 16:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:10 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-18 15:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 09:31 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:45 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:51 -0700
Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:56 -0700
Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:01 -0700
Re: Cranks Richard Hertz, Laurence Clark and Pat Dolan keep on slobbering "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 07:52 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:48 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-20 20:05 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 18:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:08 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-21 06:23 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-21 17:41 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 10:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-21 13:39 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 02:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-21 12:09 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 10:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-22 11:04 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-22 11:06 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-23 11:49 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 11:59 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:38 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 13:28 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Chaston Kuipers <rsoc@scusseee.ps> - 2023-06-23 21:42 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-24 10:46 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-24 10:46 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 09:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:54 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 13:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-25 13:48 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-26 11:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 07:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:15 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:06 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:31 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-26 22:53 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-24 11:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:26 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-21 11:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-20 18:33 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:31 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 07:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-23 13:13 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Epifanio Schoonenburg <urou@sucinora.br> - 2023-06-23 17:28 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:35 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Reginal Langbroek <gorl@gblarllb.ra> - 2023-06-23 17:40 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:01 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-23 21:28 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 15:49 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:35 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 17:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 09:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 10:55 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:50 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 13:58 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-27 21:55 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:41 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 23:30 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 21:14 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:23 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 07:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 10:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 23:31 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 06:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-08 12:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 04:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 06:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-08 16:11 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 08:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-09 11:28 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 21:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 22:52 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 23:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 12:08 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:31 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 13:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:44 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:23 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:40 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 19:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 23:37 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 16:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 19:52 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:47 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 09:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 13:07 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 15:57 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 14:00 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 18:02 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 15:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 18:08 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:35 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:18 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 16:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:40 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 20:14 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 21:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 00:46 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 22:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 07:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 12:07 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 09:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-02 19:06 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 01:47 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 13:33 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:17 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 01:26 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:12 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:04 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 01:15 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 19:39 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Smith Can <aanh@nnnttcth.ia> - 2023-07-01 22:10 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-01 13:26 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Hillary Oorschot <lara@aocolror.ya> - 2023-06-29 21:29 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 17:04 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Emanuele Heel <manl@eeeeleee.ll> - 2023-06-29 22:31 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-29 20:30 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:53 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:46 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's David Agteren <ainv@gvdideig.aa> - 2023-06-30 09:18 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:17 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Woodrow Richard <rwao@rwwrrooo.rw> - 2023-07-01 11:43 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Demonte Achthoven <oado@ennmoaea.ch> - 2023-06-28 16:42 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Braxton Amstel <txmt@asememtm.ra> - 2023-06-28 16:50 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Bob Rumpade <peab@orbmarer.ou> - 2023-06-28 23:04 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:23 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-06-28 15:09 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 18:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 20:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 21:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 05:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 21:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-06-29 05:53 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 07:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 12:14 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 12:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:42 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 15:51 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 17:33 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 13:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 14:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 19:44 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 21:08 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 21:49 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 00:25 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's Peter-John Maes <a-he@t-jtrjsm.ee> - 2023-06-30 11:13 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 00:23 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 11:45 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 04:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-01 13:26 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:13 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Keaton Konstantatos <ktnn@tksatooa.ta> - 2023-07-07 19:16 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-08 11:40 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 02:59 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:23 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:20 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:19 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 13:28 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 18:45 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 17:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 20:52 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:17 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:26 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:36 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:58 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 03:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 06:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-12 15:02 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 18:14 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 21:30 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-12 19:08 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 19:29 -0700
Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:48 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:48 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:29 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:52 -0700
Re: Kapo Imbecile Richard Hertz gets to eat shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-12 21:36 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 23:14 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:43 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Barton Demakis <erom@akadikmr.no> - 2023-07-11 09:24 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Pasquale Nomikos <osai@qoauqsqm.ka> - 2023-07-08 20:47 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-09 12:35 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:29 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:11 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:38 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:44 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:22 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:00 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:32 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:40 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 11:27 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:03 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:56 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:39 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:47 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 14:20 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 22:24 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:01 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 14:10 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:08 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 14:25 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 18:43 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 16:07 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 16:18 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Lee Kanavos <alke@avvvvekn.ll> - 2023-07-09 19:21 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 19:54 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:25 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:58 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 13:31 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:37 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Jeiker Paraskos <okas@ppkiesre.rr> - 2023-07-10 22:20 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 16:30 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-10 23:27 -0400
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Eugene Antimisiaris <anse@neanenae.ir> - 2023-07-11 09:07 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Wyouman Petrakis <iawp@eyapkrsk.or> - 2023-07-10 11:39 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 14:34 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 15:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-08 17:46 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:12 +0200
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Fraga Kalakos <akol@fgkkakar.gk> - 2023-07-09 15:11 +0000
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-08 19:00 -0500
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:06 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz refuses to concede, "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 06:16 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 08:57 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 09:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 11:21 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 13:05 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 13:09 -0700
Re: The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance exposed. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 16:44 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 16:56 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 18:43 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 19:30 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 19:46 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 20:37 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:30 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:20 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:54 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz digs up some fellow crank Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 16:51 -0700
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 15:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3931cf78-71c0-4132-81ab-858ae97888e5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613974 |
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > You might have a look at the Parker Solar Probe > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe> > > > as an illustration of the predictions of orbital accuracy that can be > > > achieved nowadays. > > > > > > It will reach it's final orbit after 7 (yes, that is seven) close > > > encounters with Venus for gravity assist. To get all those swings right > > > you must navigate the thing -very- accurately. (to kilometer precision) > > > You can only do that if you know where everything else in the solar > > > system is, to that precision. Here is an orbit preview, notice the 9 > > > significant digits. > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Animation_ > > > of_Parker_Solar_Probe_trajectory.gif> > > > > > > And yes, orbital prediction is that accurate, nowadays. The > > > uncertainties are due mainly to 'asteroid noise'. > > > > > > It seems to me that you are ripe for following your own advice, for you > > > are clearly not capable of keeping up with developments, > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > Thanks for the info about this solar probe, but it's unrelated to the > > problem of Mercury's perihelion advance. > > > > I have no doubts about the incredible progress achieved in the last 20 > > years on Solar System Dynamics and better models for newtonian > > calculations (NOT PPN, please. Not used by anyone, except desktop > > physicists and astronomers). > > > > BUT, regarding to the 166 years old enigma about Mercury, discovered by Le > > Verrier, you have to consider this: > > > > Disregarding the bias due to observations from Earth, the problem itself > > is to determine EXACTLY which is the influence of every planet and other > > solar system massive objects, like the main asteroid belt and other things > > INTO the advance of the perihelion during 100 years. > > > > To perform an ACCURATE calculation, the effects of different celestial > > bodies HAS TO BE COMPUTED on a daily basis for more than 365 days, > > INCLUDING the perturbations of one body over every each other. > > > > Then, assuming that after calculations over 365 days completed a cycle > > that repeats, then multiply it by 100 to obtain the result. > > > > BUT, consider that a model for the influence of the Sun and every planet, > > their moons, asteroids, etc., IS REQUIRED. > > > > This model has to be run into a powerful computer system, with A SOFTWARE > > capable of computing more than 10 gravitational perturbations per day. And > > EVERY SINGLE PERTURBATION (like Earth + Moon) has to have a separate > > program that compute the perturbations of EVERY OTHER celestial body > > within the Solar System PER DAY. > > > > When you do the math, the main software has to include thousand of > > calculations per day to obtain the daily perturbation over the orbit of > > Mercury. And, for the safety of accuracy and precision, the program HAS TO > > include real data (to fact-check), obtained through observational > > astronomy (either Earth or space based). > Right, and that is precisely what is done, only better. > (at places like JPL) > > When you can SHOW ME a program with the above characteristics that, once > > having run ten of times to average, and that gives a missing factor of > > 43"/cy, I WILL BELIEVE. > You can find some of the results in > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2> > Smmary: Total precession rate = 575.3100 ą 0.0015''/century, > General relativistic contribution = 42.9799 ą 0.0009''/century. > > This reports on both computed data and observations made by spacecraft > tracking. And yes, this is accurate to milliarcseconds. > > Meanwhile, what is theoretically available in 2023, are APPROXIMATIONS. > > > > And consider that none of the funny cosmological phenomena (like Dark > > Matter, galactic Black Hole, Dark Energy, etc) is yet considered. > > > > In the time between fiction and reality, enjoy and worship GR and the > > Einstein icon. > The so-called 'HOAX' is just you being silly, > > Jan I had an idea about extra-solar system influences over Mercury's perihelion advance. From the 2017 paper that I posted (JPL guys), the influence of Jupiter over Mercury is 154"/century, the second larger after Venus (277.4"/century). Then, I thought: what about the gravitational pull of the entire Milky Way over Mercury? After some average calculations, it comes to be that the influence of the entire Milky Way is about a 0.0034 part of what Jupiter contributes. It comes to be 0,53"/cy. This effect is huge in comparison with others, and destroy the myth of the 43"/cy, now being less than 42.47"/cy. I suppose that..... (crickets). Here are the raw calculations and sources: **************************************************** https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/what-does-the-milky-way-weigh-hubble-and-gaia-investigate Earlier research dating back several decades used a variety of observational techniques that provided estimates for our galaxy's mass ranging between 500 billion to 3 trillion solar masses. The improved measurement is near the middle of this range. Mass of Milky Way: M = 2E+12 x 2E+30 Kg = 2E+42 Kg Mass of Mercury; m = 3.301E+23 kg Distance Sun - Milky Way: R² = 1.81251E+35 Km2 = 1.81251E+41 m² GMm/R² = 1.33E+13*2E+42/1.81E+41 = 2.8E+14 Kg m/s² = 2.8E+14 N ----------------------------- Jupiter mass: M = 1.9E+27 kg Avg, distance Jupiter-Mercury: R² = 5.13E+23 m² GMm/R² = 6.6743E−11*1.9E+27*3.3E+23/5.13E+23 Kg m/s² = 8.2E+16 Kg m/s² = 8.2E+16 N ------------------------------- Ratio gravitational pull Jupiter/Milky Way = 0.00341 Influence of Milky Way = Jupiter pull x 0.00341 = 0.53"/cy Not an easy to dismiss influence, considering that in the table of the paper of the JPL guys, there are 12 (TWELVE) influences listed that are lower than 0.03"/cy, and that this value is about 1/5 of the influence of Mars. And this is one influence that CAN'T BE NEGLECTED. No Dark Matter or similar inventions. Just Newton averaged at galactic level. Of course that in 1915, the Milky Way was considered by Einstein TO BE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, with about 20,000 stars and a diameter of 10,000 ly. But in 2023, the Milky Way has a diameter of about 90,000 ly and contain between 100 and 400 billion stars, with a total mass amounting about 2 trillion solar masses. Einstein didn't think of that, did he? And now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 12:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qd3467.rabscj7jum2yN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613984 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 6:31:07?PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:23:34?AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > You might have a look at the Parker Solar Probe > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe> > > > > as an illustration of the predictions of orbital accuracy that can be > > > > achieved nowadays. > > > > > > > > It will reach it's final orbit after 7 (yes, that is seven) close > > > > encounters with Venus for gravity assist. To get all those swings right > > > > you must navigate the thing -very- accurately. (to kilometer precision) > > > > You can only do that if you know where everything else in the solar > > > > system is, to that precision. Here is an orbit preview, notice the 9 > > > > significant digits. > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe#/media/File:Animation_ > > > > of_Parker_Solar_Probe_trajectory.gif> > > > > > > > > And yes, orbital prediction is that accurate, nowadays. The > > > > uncertainties are due mainly to 'asteroid noise'. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that you are ripe for following your own advice, for you > > > > are clearly not capable of keeping up with developments, > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the info about this solar probe, but it's unrelated to the > > > problem of Mercury's perihelion advance. > > > > > > I have no doubts about the incredible progress achieved in the last 20 > > > years on Solar System Dynamics and better models for newtonian > > > calculations (NOT PPN, please. Not used by anyone, except desktop > > > physicists and astronomers). > > > > > > BUT, regarding to the 166 years old enigma about Mercury, discovered by Le > > > Verrier, you have to consider this: > > > > > > Disregarding the bias due to observations from Earth, the problem itself > > > is to determine EXACTLY which is the influence of every planet and other > > > solar system massive objects, like the main asteroid belt and other things > > > INTO the advance of the perihelion during 100 years. > > > > > > To perform an ACCURATE calculation, the effects of different celestial > > > bodies HAS TO BE COMPUTED on a daily basis for more than 365 days, > > > INCLUDING the perturbations of one body over every each other. > > > > > > Then, assuming that after calculations over 365 days completed a cycle > > > that repeats, then multiply it by 100 to obtain the result. > > > > > > BUT, consider that a model for the influence of the Sun and every planet, > > > their moons, asteroids, etc., IS REQUIRED. > > > > > > This model has to be run into a powerful computer system, with A SOFTWARE > > > capable of computing more than 10 gravitational perturbations per day. And > > > EVERY SINGLE PERTURBATION (like Earth + Moon) has to have a separate > > > program that compute the perturbations of EVERY OTHER celestial body > > > within the Solar System PER DAY. > > > > > > When you do the math, the main software has to include thousand of > > > calculations per day to obtain the daily perturbation over the orbit of > > > Mercury. And, for the safety of accuracy and precision, the program HAS TO > > > include real data (to fact-check), obtained through observational > > > astronomy (either Earth or space based). > > Right, and that is precisely what is done, only better. > > (at places like JPL) > > > When you can SHOW ME a program with the above characteristics that, once > > > having run ten of times to average, and that gives a missing factor of > > > 43"/cy, I WILL BELIEVE. > > You can find some of the results in > > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2> > > Smmary: Total precession rate = 575.3100 ? 0.0015''/century, > > General relativistic contribution = 42.9799 ? 0.0009''/century. > > > > This reports on both computed data and observations made by spacecraft > > tracking. And yes, this is accurate to milliarcseconds. > > > Meanwhile, what is theoretically available in 2023, are APPROXIMATIONS. > > > > > > And consider that none of the funny cosmological phenomena (like Dark > > > Matter, galactic Black Hole, Dark Energy, etc) is yet considered. > > > > > > In the time between fiction and reality, enjoy and worship GR and the > > > Einstein icon. > > The so-called 'HOAX' is just you being silly, > > > > Jan > > I had an idea about extra-solar system influences over Mercury's > perihelion advance. Yes, you had, and it is wrong. > From the 2017 paper that I posted (JPL guys), the influence of Jupiter > over Mercury is 154"/century, the second larger after Venus > (277.4"/century). Then, I thought: what about the gravitational pull of > the entire Milky Way over Mercury? > > After some average calculations, it comes to be that the influence of the > entire Milky Way is about a 0.0034 part of what Jupiter contributes. It > comes to be 0,53"/cy. > > This effect is huge in comparison with others, and destroy the myth of the > 43"/cy, now being less than 42.47"/cy. > > I suppose that..... (crickets). > > Here are the raw calculations and sources: > > **************************************************** > > https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/what-does-the-milky-way-weigh-hu > bble-and-gaia-investigate Earlier research dating back several decades > used a variety of observational techniques that provided estimates for our > galaxy's mass ranging between 500 billion to 3 trillion solar masses. > The improved measurement is near the middle of this range. > > Mass of Milky Way: M = 2E+12 x 2E+30 Kg = 2E+42 Kg > Mass of Mercury; m = 3.301E+23 kg > Distance Sun - Milky Way: R? = 1.81251E+35 Km2 = 1.81251E+41 m? > GMm/R? = 1.33E+13*2E+42/1.81E+41 = 2.8E+14 Kg m/s? = 2.8E+14 N > ----------------------------- > Jupiter mass: M = 1.9E+27 kg Avg, distance Jupiter-Mercury: R? = 5.13E+23 > m? GMm/R? = 6.6743E?11*1.9E+27*3.3E+23/5.13E+23 Kg m/s? = 8.2E+16 Kg > m/s? = 8.2E+16 N > ------------------------------- > Ratio gravitational pull Jupiter/Milky Way = 0.00341 > > Influence of Milky Way = Jupiter pull x 0.00341 = 0.53"/cy Wrong indeed. The solar system as a whole is in free fall in the average field of the galaxy. (the Sun orbits, remember?) So only the second order tidal effects matter, and they are negligeable. (they scale with size of mercury orbit/size of the galaxy) > Not an easy to dismiss influence, considering that in the table of the > paper of the JPL guys, there are 12 (TWELVE) influences listed that are > lower than 0.03"/cy, and that this value is about 1/5 of the influence of > Mars. > > And this is one influence that CAN'T BE NEGLECTED. > > No Dark Matter or similar inventions. Just Newton averaged at galactic > level. > > Of course that in 1915, the Milky Way was considered by Einstein TO BE THE > ENTIRE UNIVERSE, with about 20,000 stars and a diameter of 10,000 ly. > > But in 2023, the Milky Way has a diameter of about 90,000 ly and contain > between 100 and 400 billion stars, with a total mass amounting about 2 > trillion solar masses. > > Einstein didn't think of that, did he? Einstein didn't have to think about it, and neither does any other real physicist. It is immediately obvious. > And now? Now it is for you to see the errors of your ways, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 12:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7ka9o$26pp7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #613911 |
On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: >>>> The current best observed value >>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement >>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. >>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) >>>> >>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime >>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement >>>> with the general relativistic predictions. >>>> >>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun >>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, >>>> >>>> Jan >>> >>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! >>> >>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). >>> >>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! >> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the >> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the >> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is >> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which >> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is correct? >>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. >> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, >> the calculations in total are supported. >>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". >> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these >> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. >> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small >> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR >> component should be anything other than 43"/century. >>> >>> Got it? >>> >> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this >> but you can't. > > Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior > of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and mentally ill people aren't rational. > > Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old > EE folks here surely had. So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding relativity. > The average value of 55.997"/year is AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, and the effect of equinox. Illustrate better, ignorant! ... > STANDARD CALCULATIONS that are 43"/cy short of that value. Yes we can account for all factors with Newtonian math except that last 43"/century. > > GR claims that the missing 43"/cy can be explained by its stupid theory of space bending and twisting under Sun's mass. Just one of many validations of GR. > THERE ARE MANY OTHER CAUSES, much of them due to UNKNOWN physics. Name them. Of course there always could be *something*, which is why the 43"/century precession of Mercury is not considered a proof of GR but merely validation of the GR theory. We don't know that there aren't invisible pink fairies shoving Mercury around in its orbit. > > Do you think that physics is done, once GR has been adopted? Science always advances. You are already 100+ years behind. As science advances you'll become behinder and behinder. > > Asshole, it can't even explain the motion of planets in the Solar System, even less the Milky Way rotation, It certainly does. But remember that for relatively slow speeds and weak gravity, we can still use the Newtonian mechanics approximation. We could use the full blown messy GR math and get nearly the exact same answers but there's no need for that in the solar system. > not to mention > the behavior of the "observable" universe (with its 94% of baryionic mass MISSING). Missing mass/dark matter/dark energy isn't a problem of GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 13:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg60vtFj63tU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614027 |
On 6/29/2023 11:08 AM, Volney wrote: > On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >>> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: >>>>> The current best observed value >>>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement >>>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. >>>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) >>>>> >>>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime >>>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement >>>>> with the general relativistic predictions. >>>>> >>>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun >>>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>> >>>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! >>>> >>>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance >>>> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). >>>> >>>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! >>> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the >>> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the >>> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is >>> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which >>> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is >>> correct? >>>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as >>>> what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. >>> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, >>> the calculations in total are supported. >>>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or >>>> ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". >>> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these >>> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. >>> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small >>> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR >>> component should be anything other than 43"/century. >>>> >>>> Got it? >>>> >>> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this >>> but you can't. >> >> Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of >> engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior >> of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial >> mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. > > No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and > science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No > good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and > mentally ill people aren't rational. >> >> Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF >> PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old >> EE folks here surely had. > > So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? > Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't > demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding > relativity. I suspect that those of us who had significantly successful careers have found that the state of the art in science is adequate to all modern purposes. Out of that arises my understanding that some of those of us who had mediocre careers are here taking a shot at achieving a success beyond merely earning a paycheck as so many have done. I see this playing out in any number of the cranks that currently inhabit this newsgroup. When their underlying goal is to achieve a last HURRAH because there weren't any in the past while presently unable and unwilling to put any work into an achievement we get what we see here. Lots of blather. It is, at best, pathetic. I don't blame the academicians who used to participate here for abandoning this medium. I'm here as a pastime, not because I have any need to achieve anything worthy of note. I am completely content with my achievements. I was originally looking for some interesting conversations here. For the most part that's been a failure but there is an occasional little spark that gets me interested, and that drives me into doing some pertinent internet research and reading for a day or few. All the while I remain aware that unless I were willing to do a lot of work fleshing out an idea, nothing I say will actually change anything here. I think that Humanity's future is bright and interesting and I am grateful to have spent my life in a period that exploded with new knowledge. >> The average value of 55.997"/year is AS OBSERVED FROM EARTH, and the >> effect of equinox. Illustrate better, ignorant! > ... >> STANDARD CALCULATIONS that are 43"/cy short of that value. > > Yes we can account for all factors with Newtonian math except that last > 43"/century. >> >> GR claims that the missing 43"/cy can be explained by its stupid >> theory of space bending and twisting under Sun's mass. > > Just one of many validations of GR. > >> THERE ARE MANY OTHER CAUSES, much of them due to UNKNOWN physics. > > Name them. > > Of course there always could be *something*, which is why the > 43"/century precession of Mercury is not considered a proof of GR but > merely validation of the GR theory. We don't know that there aren't > invisible pink fairies shoving Mercury around in its orbit. >> >> Do you think that physics is done, once GR has been adopted? > > Science always advances. You are already 100+ years behind. As science > advances you'll become behinder and behinder. >> >> Asshole, it can't even explain the motion of planets in the Solar >> System, even less the Milky Way rotation, > > It certainly does. But remember that for relatively slow speeds and weak > gravity, we can still use the Newtonian mechanics approximation. We > could use the full blown messy GR math and get nearly the exact same > answers but there's no need for that in the solar system. > >> not to mention >> the behavior of the "observable" universe (with its 94% of baryionic >> mass MISSING). > > Missing mass/dark matter/dark energy isn't a problem of GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4438c30c-fa35-4df2-ba98-3b0f72627086n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614041 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:31:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 6/29/2023 11:08 AM, Volney wrote: > > On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >>> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> > >>>> <snip> > >>>> > >>>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: > >>>>> The current best observed value > >>>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement > >>>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. > >>>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) > >>>>> > >>>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime > >>>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement > >>>>> with the general relativistic predictions. > >>>>> > >>>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun > >>>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, > >>>>> > >>>>> Jan > >>>> > >>>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! > >>>> > >>>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance > >>>> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). > >>>> > >>>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! > >>> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the > >>> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the > >>> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is > >>> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which > >>> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is > >>> correct? > >>>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as > >>>> what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. > >>> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, > >>> the calculations in total are supported. > >>>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or > >>>> ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". > >>> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these > >>> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. > >>> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small > >>> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR > >>> component should be anything other than 43"/century. > >>>> > >>>> Got it? > >>>> > >>> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this > >>> but you can't. > >> > >> Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of > >> engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior > >> of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial > >> mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. > > > > No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and > > science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No > > good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and > > mentally ill people aren't rational. > >> > >> Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF > >> PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old > >> EE folks here surely had. > > > > So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? > > Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't > > demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding > > relativity. > I suspect that those of us who had significantly successful careers > have found that the state of the art in science is adequate to all > modern purposes. > > Out of that arises my understanding that some of those of us who had > mediocre careers are here taking a shot at achieving a success beyond > merely earning a paycheck as so many have done. > > I see this playing out in any number of the cranks that currently > inhabit this newsgroup. > > When their underlying goal is to achieve a last HURRAH because there > weren't any in the past while presently unable and unwilling to put > any work into an achievement we get what we see here. Lots of blather. > > It is, at best, pathetic. I don't blame the academicians who used > to participate here for abandoning this medium. I'm here as a > pastime, not because I have any need to achieve anything worthy > of note. I am completely content with my achievements. I was > originally looking for some interesting conversations here. For > the most part that's been a failure but there is an occasional > little spark that gets me interested, and that drives me into > doing some pertinent internet research and reading for a day or > few. > > All the while I remain aware that unless I were willing to do a > lot of work fleshing out an idea, nothing I say will actually > change anything here. > > I think that Humanity's future is bright and interesting and > I am grateful to have spent my life in a period that exploded > with new knowledge. It seems that you came here, in the last months, just to vent your frustration as a philosopher of life wannabe. Also, as an advocate of binary division of human character. No grey zones for you, maybe to make your life easier. It's a burden to judge things in this complex world, but you choose the easiest path. And congratulations on your significantly successful career as a consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 16:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg6ca8Fl988U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614051 |
On 6/29/2023 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:31:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 6/29/2023 11:08 AM, Volney wrote: >>> On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: >>>>>>> The current best observed value >>>>>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement >>>>>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. >>>>>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime >>>>>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement >>>>>>> with the general relativistic predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun >>>>>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! >>>>>> >>>>>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance >>>>>> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). >>>>>> >>>>>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! >>>>> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the >>>>> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the >>>>> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is >>>>> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which >>>>> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is >>>>> correct? >>>>>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as >>>>>> what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. >>>>> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, >>>>> the calculations in total are supported. >>>>>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or >>>>>> ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". >>>>> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these >>>>> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. >>>>> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small >>>>> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR >>>>> component should be anything other than 43"/century. >>>>>> >>>>>> Got it? >>>>>> >>>>> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this >>>>> but you can't. >>>> >>>> Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of >>>> engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior >>>> of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial >>>> mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. >>> >>> No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and >>> science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No >>> good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and >>> mentally ill people aren't rational. >>>> >>>> Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF >>>> PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old >>>> EE folks here surely had. >>> >>> So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? >>> Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't >>> demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding >>> relativity. >> I suspect that those of us who had significantly successful careers >> have found that the state of the art in science is adequate to all >> modern purposes. >> >> Out of that arises my understanding that some of those of us who had >> mediocre careers are here taking a shot at achieving a success beyond >> merely earning a paycheck as so many have done. >> >> I see this playing out in any number of the cranks that currently >> inhabit this newsgroup. >> >> When their underlying goal is to achieve a last HURRAH because there >> weren't any in the past while presently unable and unwilling to put >> any work into an achievement we get what we see here. Lots of blather. >> >> It is, at best, pathetic. I don't blame the academicians who used >> to participate here for abandoning this medium. I'm here as a >> pastime, not because I have any need to achieve anything worthy >> of note. I am completely content with my achievements. I was >> originally looking for some interesting conversations here. For >> the most part that's been a failure but there is an occasional >> little spark that gets me interested, and that drives me into >> doing some pertinent internet research and reading for a day or >> few. >> >> All the while I remain aware that unless I were willing to do a >> lot of work fleshing out an idea, nothing I say will actually >> change anything here. >> >> I think that Humanity's future is bright and interesting and >> I am grateful to have spent my life in a period that exploded >> with new knowledge. > > It seems that you came here, in the last months, just to vent your frustration as a philosopher of life wannabe. You're entitled to your opinion, any opinion, and I don't worry about it regardless I think quite differently. The wonder that naturally arises as to your personal motives is dismissed because I am not, IMO, "frustrated." But thanks for sharing. At other times and in other places it was called "dog-piling." > Also, as an advocate of binary division of human character. No grey zones for you, maybe to make your life easier. > > It's a burden to judge things in this complex world, but you choose the easiest path. As you experience here. > And congratulations on your significantly successful career as a consultant. Thanks. I could complain about counterbalancing experiences. We all have them. But there's no redeeming value in that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e198d74-d210-4618-8f75-cda8a61a42b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614063 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 6:44:45 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 6/29/2023 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:31:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > >> On 6/29/2023 11:08 AM, Volney wrote: > >>> On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >>>>> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: > >>>>>>> The current best observed value > >>>>>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement > >>>>>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. > >>>>>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime > >>>>>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement > >>>>>>> with the general relativistic predictions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun > >>>>>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance > >>>>>> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! > >>>>> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the > >>>>> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the > >>>>> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is > >>>>> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which > >>>>> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is > >>>>> correct? > >>>>>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as > >>>>>> what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. > >>>>> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, > >>>>> the calculations in total are supported. > >>>>>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or > >>>>>> ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". > >>>>> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these > >>>>> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. > >>>>> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small > >>>>> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR > >>>>> component should be anything other than 43"/century. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Got it? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this > >>>>> but you can't. > >>>> > >>>> Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of > >>>> engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior > >>>> of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial > >>>> mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. > >>> > >>> No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and > >>> science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No > >>> good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and > >>> mentally ill people aren't rational. > >>>> > >>>> Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF > >>>> PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old > >>>> EE folks here surely had. > >>> > >>> So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? > >>> Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't > >>> demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding > >>> relativity. > >> I suspect that those of us who had significantly successful careers > >> have found that the state of the art in science is adequate to all > >> modern purposes. > >> > >> Out of that arises my understanding that some of those of us who had > >> mediocre careers are here taking a shot at achieving a success beyond > >> merely earning a paycheck as so many have done. > >> > >> I see this playing out in any number of the cranks that currently > >> inhabit this newsgroup. > >> > >> When their underlying goal is to achieve a last HURRAH because there > >> weren't any in the past while presently unable and unwilling to put > >> any work into an achievement we get what we see here. Lots of blather. > >> > >> It is, at best, pathetic. I don't blame the academicians who used > >> to participate here for abandoning this medium. I'm here as a > >> pastime, not because I have any need to achieve anything worthy > >> of note. I am completely content with my achievements. I was > >> originally looking for some interesting conversations here. For > >> the most part that's been a failure but there is an occasional > >> little spark that gets me interested, and that drives me into > >> doing some pertinent internet research and reading for a day or > >> few. > >> > >> All the while I remain aware that unless I were willing to do a > >> lot of work fleshing out an idea, nothing I say will actually > >> change anything here. > >> > >> I think that Humanity's future is bright and interesting and > >> I am grateful to have spent my life in a period that exploded > >> with new knowledge. > > > > It seems that you came here, in the last months, just to vent your frustration as a philosopher of life wannabe. > You're entitled to your opinion, any opinion, and I don't worry > about it regardless I think quite differently. The wonder that > naturally arises as to your personal motives is dismissed > because I am not, IMO, "frustrated." But thanks for sharing. > > At other times and in other places it was called "dog-piling." > > Also, as an advocate of binary division of human character. No grey zones for you, maybe to make your life easier. > > > > It's a burden to judge things in this complex world, but you choose the easiest path. > As you experience here. > > And congratulations on your significantly successful career as a consultant. > Thanks. I could complain about counterbalancing experiences. We all > have them. But there's no redeeming value in that. I chose the harder path, which is to publicly despise relativity, while trying to find holes in 110 years of its crappy history, while mocking relativists every time I can. I have no frustrations to rationalize or vent, and even less here, the lunatic asylum of bitter relativistic prunes. I come here to express conflicting ideas and to stir controversies. Nothing more, but nothing less. And I expressed the above many times in the few years that I've being at this forum, since 2019. But your reasons to be here almost the same time as I, besides being judgmental, are not clear to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 19:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg6mjhFmnhfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614071 |
On 6/29/2023 5:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 6:44:45 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 6/29/2023 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 3:31:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >>>> On 6/29/2023 11:08 AM, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 6/28/2023 12:14 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:30:44 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/2023 4:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:55:04 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, and for all losers with fantasies about different values: >>>>>>>>> The current best observed value >>>>>>>>> is 4"2"."9"8"0"ą"0"."0"0"1"3 arcseconds/century, in complete agreement >>>>>>>>> with the post-Newtonian prediction. >>>>>>>>> (yes, both computation and observation are that accurate nowadays) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The precession has also been measured in the meantime >>>>>>>>> for the Earth, Venus, and Mars, and that is also in agreement >>>>>>>>> with the general relativistic predictions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So fantasies about it being due to some local effect near the Sun >>>>>>>>> (like oblateness) must also be abandonned, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You must be seriously stupid or heavily ignorant! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Astronomers CAN'T OBSERVE fractions of the total perihelion advance >>>>>>>> (50,2883" , 5.30", 0.4298"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They OBSERVE the TOTAL amount per YEAR: 55.997"/year, asshole! >>>>>>> Irrelevant. There is the theory that the precession of Mercury is the >>>>>>> sum of multiple components. If the theory matches the observation, the >>>>>>> theory is supported. If there is a significant mismatch, the theory is >>>>>>> wrong. You yourself gave numbers INCLUDING GR as a component which >>>>>>> matches observations to 3.54"/century. Are you now admitting GR is >>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>> Do you understand this? THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS are not the same as >>>>>>>> what OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY gives. >>>>>>> And if the sums of the theoretical calculations matches observations, >>>>>>> the calculations in total are supported. >>>>>>>> Any error in the CALCULATION of gravitational effects, equinoxes or >>>>>>>> ANY OTHER undisclosed cause IS DETRIMENTAL OF THE 43". >>>>>>> We can calculate the gravitational effects to a very high degree these >>>>>>> days, so we can be certain the GR component "should be" 43"/century. >>>>>>> Since the difference between calculations and observations is very small >>>>>>> and are highly confident in each component, there's no reason why the GR >>>>>>> component should be anything other than 43"/century. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Got it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. Your hateful OCD blinds you. You SHOULD be able to understand this >>>>>>> but you can't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Volney, you are really a disgrace as an EE, which are the best kind of >>>>>> engineers close to physics and dynamical behavior >>>>>> of matter. You SHOULD HAVE a minimal understanding of celestial >>>>>> mechanics and astronomy due to this fact. >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU are a disgrace as an EE, because you don't follow the math and >>>>> science, instead you let your obsessive hatred for Einstein pwn you. No >>>>> good EE would do that. But you are almost certainly mentally ill, and >>>>> mentally ill people aren't rational. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, at least, EE had a much more complete education in ALL BRANCHES OF >>>>>> PHYSICS 50 years ago. I had it, and many old >>>>>> EE folks here surely had. >>>>> >>>>> So what happened to you? Head accident with severe concussion? >>>>> Schizophrenia? Experiments with psychoactive drugs? You don't >>>>> demonstrate the ability to think like an engineer or scientist regarding >>>>> relativity. >>>> I suspect that those of us who had significantly successful careers >>>> have found that the state of the art in science is adequate to all >>>> modern purposes. >>>> >>>> Out of that arises my understanding that some of those of us who had >>>> mediocre careers are here taking a shot at achieving a success beyond >>>> merely earning a paycheck as so many have done. >>>> >>>> I see this playing out in any number of the cranks that currently >>>> inhabit this newsgroup. >>>> >>>> When their underlying goal is to achieve a last HURRAH because there >>>> weren't any in the past while presently unable and unwilling to put >>>> any work into an achievement we get what we see here. Lots of blather. >>>> >>>> It is, at best, pathetic. I don't blame the academicians who used >>>> to participate here for abandoning this medium. I'm here as a >>>> pastime, not because I have any need to achieve anything worthy >>>> of note. I am completely content with my achievements. I was >>>> originally looking for some interesting conversations here. For >>>> the most part that's been a failure but there is an occasional >>>> little spark that gets me interested, and that drives me into >>>> doing some pertinent internet research and reading for a day or >>>> few. >>>> >>>> All the while I remain aware that unless I were willing to do a >>>> lot of work fleshing out an idea, nothing I say will actually >>>> change anything here. >>>> >>>> I think that Humanity's future is bright and interesting and >>>> I am grateful to have spent my life in a period that exploded >>>> with new knowledge. >>> >>> It seems that you came here, in the last months, just to vent your frustration as a philosopher of life wannabe. >> You're entitled to your opinion, any opinion, and I don't worry >> about it regardless I think quite differently. The wonder that >> naturally arises as to your personal motives is dismissed >> because I am not, IMO, "frustrated." But thanks for sharing. >> >> At other times and in other places it was called "dog-piling." >>> Also, as an advocate of binary division of human character. No grey zones for you, maybe to make your life easier. >>> >>> It's a burden to judge things in this complex world, but you choose the easiest path. >> As you experience here. >>> And congratulations on your significantly successful career as a consultant. >> Thanks. I could complain about counterbalancing experiences. We all >> have them. But there's no redeeming value in that. > > I chose the harder path, which is to publicly despise relativity, while trying to find holes in 110 years of its crappy history, > while mocking relativists every time I can. > > I have no frustrations to rationalize or vent, and even less here, the lunatic asylum of bitter relativistic prunes. > > I come here to express conflicting ideas and to stir controversies. Nothing more, but nothing less. > > And I expressed the above many times in the few years that I've being at this forum, since 2019. > > But your reasons to be here almost the same time as I, besides being judgmental, are not clear to me. It is nice that you recognize the sacredness of your mission that I view to be quite similar to that of Don Quixote. But rest assured if you apply yourself there is some small chance that you will succeed where Don never had a chance. But it appears to me you've not broken with the idea that relativity is inferior to your ideas merely because you think it is. I wish anyone who is willing to apply themselves great success, which is where I differ from staunch relativists who may or may not view the legacy left to us by Einstein as divine revelation. I've stated before that I had a personal dislike for the man, something that cranks and fellow travelers always purposely ignore. I'll repeat here that I agree with relativity because it is the default correct view in this age and doubtless will outlast me. Bring on the clearly demonstrable new. If you can do it in my lifetime I'll gladly accept what actually works, just as as of now, relativity holds that position. In the meantime please don't be upset that I consider all cranks to be, in one way or another, demented because they hold unproven ideas superior to actually proven themes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45231abc-2384-4b6b-98f7-72f7a45f3857n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614082 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 9:40:22 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: <snip> > It is nice that you recognize the sacredness of your mission > that I view to be quite similar to that of Don Quixote. But > rest assured if you apply yourself there is some small chance > that you will succeed where Don never had a chance. But it > appears to me you've not broken with the idea that relativity > is inferior to your ideas merely because you think it is. <snip> Well, to start, I have no ideas or theories to replace the idiocy of length contraction, time dilation and constancy of speed of light. I just adhere 100% to newtonian/galilean relativity, where: x' = x - vt t' = t c' = c +/- v and these equations, along with Newton's "action at a distance" (or infinite speed of gravity) and the three laws of motion are, for me, the FOUNDATIONS over which THIS modern world has been built. Add to it the invention of the AC energy generation and distribution plus the electric AC motor (Tesla), the thermionic tube amplifier (1907 de Forest), the great advance in the renormalization of chemistry (1910-1920), the whole electromagnetism realm (1865-1920), the mass production, the development of the Operational Research (1910-1940) and the invention of the transistor (1947) plus the atomic clock (1954), and we get here thanks to natural evolution. Meanwhile, all the fuzz around relativity has provided NOTHING to the civilization. Hardly, any object powered by any engine (or assisted by gravity) has broken the speed of 200,000 Km/hr (0.000166667 c), which render this equations useless: x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/c²) ≈ x - vt, with error lower than 1/√(1 - 2.78E-08) -1 = 1.39E-08 t' = (t - vx/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²) ≈ t within a possible domain of applicability in outer space (NOT ON EARTH). Only with the above reasoning, I can dismiss special relativity for any practical use in 2023, 2123 and beyond, here ON EARTH. Regarding particle physics, I completely dismiss the relativistic concept of KE = (γ - 1) mc² for charged elementary particles, as I firmly believe that the limit to reach c speed is imposed by increasingly inefficient transfer of energy between electric fields (accelerator - particles) as the speed of light is neared, PLUS that the KE is stored in the electric fields of the particles. About GR, it all started to go down the hill after 1908 Minkowski's spacetime, 1911 Einstein's red shift Δf/f = gh/c² plus its copy of 1802 von Soldner's starlight deflection by the Sun as 2GM/Rc², doubled in 1915. The above is just as absurd as to generalize the use of rest mass energy E = mc², which CAN NOT BE APPLIED to ponderable matter OR to the elementary and indivisible electron. Regarding Mercury and the 43"/cy, this entire thread is devoted to deal with this HOAX, which is based on the gravity transmitted at c speed (spacetime), the same speed that Gerber calculated 18 years before. Gravity speed is INFINITE, as the use of the most relevant scientists in the last century proves it (just think how the 532"/cy are calculated since Le Verrier up today). Imagine Kepler's laws applied with a finite speed of gravity could cause: the destruction of every single orbit in the Solar System, and planets flying away. So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-29 23:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg74goFoqb7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614098 |
On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 9:40:22 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > > <snip> > >> It is nice that you recognize the sacredness of your mission >> that I view to be quite similar to that of Don Quixote. But >> rest assured if you apply yourself there is some small chance >> that you will succeed where Don never had a chance. But it >> appears to me you've not broken with the idea that relativity >> is inferior to your ideas merely because you think it is. > > <snip> > > Well, to start, I have no ideas or theories to replace the idiocy of length contraction, time dilation > and constancy of speed of light. I just adhere 100% to newtonian/galilean relativity, where: > > x' = x - vt > t' = t > c' = c +/- v > > and these equations, along with Newton's "action at a distance" (or infinite speed of gravity) and the three > laws of motion are, for me, the FOUNDATIONS over which THIS modern world has been built. > > Add to it the invention of the AC energy generation and distribution plus the electric AC motor (Tesla), the thermionic > tube amplifier (1907 de Forest), the great advance in the renormalization of chemistry (1910-1920), the whole > electromagnetism realm (1865-1920), the mass production, the development of the Operational Research (1910-1940) > and the invention of the transistor (1947) plus the atomic clock (1954), and we get here thanks to natural evolution. > > Meanwhile, all the fuzz around relativity has provided NOTHING to the civilization. Hardly, any object powered by any > engine (or assisted by gravity) has broken the speed of 200,000 Km/hr (0.000166667 c), which render this equations > useless: > > x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/c²) ≈ x - vt, with error lower than 1/√(1 - 2.78E-08) -1 = 1.39E-08 > t' = (t - vx/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²) ≈ t > > within a possible domain of applicability in outer space (NOT ON EARTH). > > Only with the above reasoning, I can dismiss special relativity for any practical use in 2023, 2123 and beyond, here ON EARTH. > > Regarding particle physics, I completely dismiss the relativistic concept of KE = (γ - 1) mc² for charged elementary particles, > as I firmly believe that the limit to reach c speed is imposed by increasingly inefficient transfer of energy between electric > fields (accelerator - particles) as the speed of light is neared, PLUS that the KE is stored in the electric fields of the particles. > > About GR, it all started to go down the hill after 1908 Minkowski's spacetime, 1911 Einstein's red shift Δf/f = gh/c² plus > its copy of 1802 von Soldner's starlight deflection by the Sun as 2GM/Rc², doubled in 1915. > > The above is just as absurd as to generalize the use of rest mass energy E = mc², which CAN NOT BE APPLIED to ponderable > matter OR to the elementary and indivisible electron. > > Regarding Mercury and the 43"/cy, this entire thread is devoted to deal with this HOAX, which is based on the gravity transmitted > at c speed (spacetime), the same speed that Gerber calculated 18 years before. Gravity speed is INFINITE, as the use of the most > relevant scientists in the last century proves it (just think how the 532"/cy are calculated since Le Verrier up today). Imagine > Kepler's laws applied with a finite speed of gravity could cause: the destruction of every single orbit in the Solar System, and > planets flying away. > > So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a better reception anywhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c3042db-8bdb-4e46-bb87-f578e27ad7fcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614110 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37:48 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: <snip> > > So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. > But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think > you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a > better reception anywhere else. I don't deny the advances in solid state physics and quantum mechanics, which have help chemistry, metallurgy and other fields tremendously. But I think that particle physics is a sterile science. You can't get the truth of nature by smashing particles into bits and try to figure out how the parts worked together (Heisenberg, circa 1965). These result escalated into new theories, like Gell-Mann QCD, which stuck physics for 60 years and counting. I don't accept the theory of a big bang, with everything born out of a singularity. It's asymmetrical in time and have no sense for me. Plus, it provides much more questions than answers, spreading confusion and a complete loss of meaning, as layers and patches pile up. Leaving aside the world of the quantum and cosmology, with theories valid up to a certain point, what remains is applied science and technology ON EARTHLY THINGS, with real value for civilization. This is not the case of pursuing in pushing the limits of established knowledge more than necessary, just because a new generation of scientists (in increasing number) is available without a clear mission on the usefulness of extending limits one more generation. When the numbers of the limits are being pushed to absurd values, just because money has to be spent to give scientists work to do, someone has to have the clarity of mind to think if such push is worthy, and for what. Then, maybe, it will be found that NEW DIRECTIONS in the development of knowledge have to be radically established. Explain the real use of a new $28 billions LHC, to generate protons with 50 TeV. Or new atomic clocks with stability of 10E-18, or picovolt meters, femtosecond counters, etc. Is that the above projects are to support BBT, with its initial 10E-32 seconds? To find out length of things below 10E-18 mt in the quantum world? To directly measure sub-nanometer lengths in solid state physics? FOR WHAT? To discover what gravity really is, and see if antigravity can be found? To see if a human spacecraft can be accelerated by quantum based engines near the speed of light? To reach Alpha Centauri within a living generation? What has to be clear here is that a small group of relativists, compared with the total number of scientific community, is trying to justify its existence in a world that DON'T NEED THEM. Think about the progress that current knowledge could bring to humanity, IF it were applied to areas in which the progress has been more than slow: Earth sciences, medical sciences, energy generation, food production, education, economy, social sciences, etc. But it seems that nobody want to be aware that the development of knowledge CAN DEGENERATE and, because of that, get stuck in worthless pursuits in science. One thing is clear to me: You CAN'T BEAT NOISE and RANDOMNESS beyond certain limits. And those limits have to be established, say, every 100 years. It would bring clarity of mind for scientific goals. Watch these developments in the important branch of scientific instrumentation: Direct measurement of voltage: Year 1900: 10 milliVolt DC analog resolution. Year 2010: 10 nanoVolt AC/DC 8 1/2 digits resolution, 10 Mhz range, Keysight 3458A. Direct measurement of time duration: Year 1900: 0.1 seconds analog resolution. Year 2010: 1 picosecond digital resolution, HydraHarp 400. Frequency Standards Year 1941: 100 Khz OCXO, 10E-06 per day stability. HP 100B. Year 1991: 5MHz Cesium Beam Primary Frequency Standard, 10E-14/week stability. HP 5071A These are some random examples. Meanwhile, no new antibiotics have been discovered in 50 years, for example. And the new generation of microprocessors is created by brute force to get 2n and 80 billion transistors/chip, which has elevated the power consumption to hundred of watts, forcing the development of new technologies for heat dissipation, which is increasing the cost of desktop computers by 100% or more in the last 5 years. I don't see that these developments are aligned with portability, for instance. There are many more examples about how science and technology are marching towards a dead alley, unless somebody start to think rationally, above greed. There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg9bn2F4rn6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614156 |
I'm going to leace unanswered narrative intact wuith wide spacing for those segments I am addressing. On 6/30/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37:48 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > <snip> > >>> So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. > >> But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think >> you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a >> better reception anywhere else. > > I don't deny the advances in solid state physics and quantum mechanics, which have help chemistry, metallurgy and other fields tremendously. But I think that particle physics is a sterile science. What understanding do you have regarding particle physics that would help advance that subdiscipline? Throwing this into the discussion appears to me to merely be an attempt to dilute the real discussion to a point of uselessness. You can't get the truth of nature by smashing particles into bits and try to figure out how the parts worked together (Heisenberg, circa 1965). These result escalated into new theories, like Gell-Mann QCD, which stuck physics for 60 years and counting. The truth is that you're promoting a baseless argument on topics that you do not understand. All this comes back to the underlying neurotransmitter difficulties I pointed out recently > I don't accept the theory of a big bang, with everything born out of a singularity. It's asymmetrical in time and have no sense for me. Plus, it provides much more questions than answers, spreading confusion and a complete loss of meaning, as layers and patches pile up. ibid I might as well stop here, there's nothing to be gained by anyone should I continue. > > Leaving aside the world of the quantum and cosmology, with theories valid up to a certain point, what remains is applied > science and technology ON EARTHLY THINGS, with real value for civilization. This is not the case of pursuing in pushing the limits of established knowledge more than necessary, just because a new generation of scientists (in increasing number) is available without a clear mission on the usefulness of extending limits one more generation. When the numbers of the limits are being pushed to absurd values, just because money has to be spent to give scientists work to do, someone has to have the clarity of mind to think if such push is worthy, and for what. Then, maybe, it will be found that NEW DIRECTIONS in the development of knowledge have to be radically established. > > Explain the real use of a new $28 billions LHC, to generate protons with 50 TeV. Or new atomic clocks with stability of 10E-18, or picovolt meters, femtosecond counters, etc. > > Is that the above projects are to support BBT, with its initial 10E-32 seconds? To find out length of things below 10E-18 mt in the quantum world? To directly measure sub-nanometer lengths in solid state physics? FOR WHAT? > To discover what gravity really is, and see if antigravity can be found? To see if a human spacecraft can be accelerated by quantum based engines near the speed of light? To reach Alpha Centauri within a living generation? > > What has to be clear here is that a small group of relativists, compared with the total number of scientific community, is trying to justify its existence in a world that DON'T NEED THEM. > > Think about the progress that current knowledge could bring to humanity, IF it were applied to areas in which the progress has been more than slow: Earth sciences, medical sciences, energy generation, food production, education, economy, social sciences, etc. > > But it seems that nobody want to be aware that the development of knowledge CAN DEGENERATE and, because of that, get stuck in worthless pursuits in science. > > One thing is clear to me: You CAN'T BEAT NOISE and RANDOMNESS beyond certain limits. And those limits have to be established, say, every 100 years. It would bring clarity of mind for scientific goals. > > Watch these developments in the important branch of scientific instrumentation: > > Direct measurement of voltage: > Year 1900: 10 milliVolt DC analog resolution. > Year 2010: 10 nanoVolt AC/DC 8 1/2 digits resolution, 10 Mhz range, Keysight 3458A. > > Direct measurement of time duration: > Year 1900: 0.1 seconds analog resolution. > Year 2010: 1 picosecond digital resolution, HydraHarp 400. > > Frequency Standards > Year 1941: 100 Khz OCXO, 10E-06 per day stability. HP 100B. > Year 1991: 5MHz Cesium Beam Primary Frequency Standard, 10E-14/week stability. HP 5071A > > These are some random examples. > > Meanwhile, no new antibiotics have been discovered in 50 years, for example. And the new generation of microprocessors > is created by brute force to get 2n and 80 billion transistors/chip, which has elevated the power consumption to hundred of > watts, forcing the development of new technologies for heat dissipation, which is increasing the cost of desktop computers > by 100% or more in the last 5 years. I don't see that these developments are aligned with portability, for instance. > > There are many more examples about how science and technology are marching towards a dead alley, unless somebody > start to think rationally, above greed. > > There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 20:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d2647b2-a5d9-4689-8d22-9b098b8b2a33n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614156 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:19:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37:48 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > > On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > <snip> > > > So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. > > > But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think > > you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a > > better reception anywhere else. > I don't deny the advances in solid state physics and quantum mechanics, which have help chemistry, metallurgy and other fields tremendously. But I think that particle physics is a sterile science. You can't get the truth of nature by smashing particles into bits and try to figure out how the parts worked together (Heisenberg, circa 1965). These result escalated into new theories, like Gell-Mann QCD, which stuck physics for 60 years and counting. > > I don't accept the theory of a big bang, with everything born out of a singularity. It's asymmetrical in time and have no sense for me. Plus, it provides much more questions than answers, spreading confusion and a complete loss of meaning, as layers and patches pile up. > > Leaving aside the world of the quantum and cosmology, with theories valid up to a certain point, what remains is applied > science and technology ON EARTHLY THINGS, with real value for civilization. This is not the case of pursuing in pushing the limits of established knowledge more than necessary, just because a new generation of scientists (in increasing number) is available without a clear mission on the usefulness of extending limits one more generation. When the numbers of the limits are being pushed to absurd values, just because money has to be spent to give scientists work to do, someone has to have the clarity of mind to think if such push is worthy, and for what. Then, maybe, it will be found that NEW DIRECTIONS in the development of knowledge have to be radically established. > > Explain the real use of a new $28 billions LHC, to generate protons with 50 TeV. Or new atomic clocks with stability of 10E-18, or picovolt meters, femtosecond counters, etc. > > Is that the above projects are to support BBT, with its initial 10E-32 seconds? To find out length of things below 10E-18 mt in the quantum world? To directly measure sub-nanometer lengths in solid state physics? FOR WHAT? > To discover what gravity really is, and see if antigravity can be found? To see if a human spacecraft can be accelerated by quantum based engines near the speed of light? To reach Alpha Centauri within a living generation? > > What has to be clear here is that a small group of relativists, compared with the total number of scientific community, is trying to justify its existence in a world that DON'T NEED THEM. > > Think about the progress that current knowledge could bring to humanity, IF it were applied to areas in which the progress has been more than slow: Earth sciences, medical sciences, energy generation, food production, education, economy, social sciences, etc. > > But it seems that nobody want to be aware that the development of knowledge CAN DEGENERATE and, because of that, get stuck in worthless pursuits in science. > > One thing is clear to me: You CAN'T BEAT NOISE and RANDOMNESS beyond certain limits. And those limits have to be established, say, every 100 years. It would bring clarity of mind for scientific goals. > > Watch these developments in the important branch of scientific instrumentation: > > Direct measurement of voltage: > Year 1900: 10 milliVolt DC analog resolution. > Year 2010: 10 nanoVolt AC/DC 8 1/2 digits resolution, 10 Mhz range, Keysight 3458A. > > Direct measurement of time duration: > Year 1900: 0.1 seconds analog resolution. > Year 2010: 1 picosecond digital resolution, HydraHarp 400. > > Frequency Standards > Year 1941: 100 Khz OCXO, 10E-06 per day stability. HP 100B. > Year 1991: 5MHz Cesium Beam Primary Frequency Standard, 10E-14/week stability. HP 5071A > > These are some random examples. > > Meanwhile, no new antibiotics have been discovered in 50 years, for example. And the new generation of microprocessors > is created by brute force to get 2n and 80 billion transistors/chip, which has elevated the power consumption to hundred of > watts, forcing the development of new technologies for heat dissipation, which is increasing the cost of desktop computers > by 100% or more in the last 5 years. I don't see that these developments are aligned with portability, for instance. > > There are many more examples about how science and technology are marching towards a dead alley, unless somebody > start to think rationally, above greed. > > There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days. Relativity has contributed to the waylaying of cosmology for 100 years. Nonsense like the baseless assumption of a finite universe, the velocity-distance relationship, and singularities have prevented cosmologists from understanding obvious facts. For example, how could our galaxy have only spun around 56 times since its formation? Common sense is enough to see through this and understand since there is no evidence for a finite universe, that our galaxy has spun around many more times than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 22:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg9luhF6a1uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614171 |
On 6/30/2023 10:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:19:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37:48 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >>> On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >> <snip> >>>> So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. >> >>> But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think >>> you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a >>> better reception anywhere else. >> I don't deny the advances in solid state physics and quantum mechanics, which have help chemistry, metallurgy and other fields tremendously. But I think that particle physics is a sterile science. You can't get the truth of nature by smashing particles into bits and try to figure out how the parts worked together (Heisenberg, circa 1965). These result escalated into new theories, like Gell-Mann QCD, which stuck physics for 60 years and counting. >> >> I don't accept the theory of a big bang, with everything born out of a singularity. It's asymmetrical in time and have no sense for me. Plus, it provides much more questions than answers, spreading confusion and a complete loss of meaning, as layers and patches pile up. >> >> Leaving aside the world of the quantum and cosmology, with theories valid up to a certain point, what remains is applied >> science and technology ON EARTHLY THINGS, with real value for civilization. This is not the case of pursuing in pushing the limits of established knowledge more than necessary, just because a new generation of scientists (in increasing number) is available without a clear mission on the usefulness of extending limits one more generation. When the numbers of the limits are being pushed to absurd values, just because money has to be spent to give scientists work to do, someone has to have the clarity of mind to think if such push is worthy, and for what. Then, maybe, it will be found that NEW DIRECTIONS in the development of knowledge have to be radically established. >> >> Explain the real use of a new $28 billions LHC, to generate protons with 50 TeV. Or new atomic clocks with stability of 10E-18, or picovolt meters, femtosecond counters, etc. >> >> Is that the above projects are to support BBT, with its initial 10E-32 seconds? To find out length of things below 10E-18 mt in the quantum world? To directly measure sub-nanometer lengths in solid state physics? FOR WHAT? >> To discover what gravity really is, and see if antigravity can be found? To see if a human spacecraft can be accelerated by quantum based engines near the speed of light? To reach Alpha Centauri within a living generation? >> >> What has to be clear here is that a small group of relativists, compared with the total number of scientific community, is trying to justify its existence in a world that DON'T NEED THEM. >> >> Think about the progress that current knowledge could bring to humanity, IF it were applied to areas in which the progress has been more than slow: Earth sciences, medical sciences, energy generation, food production, education, economy, social sciences, etc. >> >> But it seems that nobody want to be aware that the development of knowledge CAN DEGENERATE and, because of that, get stuck in worthless pursuits in science. >> >> One thing is clear to me: You CAN'T BEAT NOISE and RANDOMNESS beyond certain limits. And those limits have to be established, say, every 100 years. It would bring clarity of mind for scientific goals. >> >> Watch these developments in the important branch of scientific instrumentation: >> >> Direct measurement of voltage: >> Year 1900: 10 milliVolt DC analog resolution. >> Year 2010: 10 nanoVolt AC/DC 8 1/2 digits resolution, 10 Mhz range, Keysight 3458A. >> >> Direct measurement of time duration: >> Year 1900: 0.1 seconds analog resolution. >> Year 2010: 1 picosecond digital resolution, HydraHarp 400. >> >> Frequency Standards >> Year 1941: 100 Khz OCXO, 10E-06 per day stability. HP 100B. >> Year 1991: 5MHz Cesium Beam Primary Frequency Standard, 10E-14/week stability. HP 5071A >> >> These are some random examples. >> >> Meanwhile, no new antibiotics have been discovered in 50 years, for example. And the new generation of microprocessors >> is created by brute force to get 2n and 80 billion transistors/chip, which has elevated the power consumption to hundred of >> watts, forcing the development of new technologies for heat dissipation, which is increasing the cost of desktop computers >> by 100% or more in the last 5 years. I don't see that these developments are aligned with portability, for instance. >> >> There are many more examples about how science and technology are marching towards a dead alley, unless somebody >> start to think rationally, above greed. >> >> There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days. > Relativity has contributed to the waylaying of cosmology for 100 years. Nonsense like the baseless assumption of a finite universe, the velocity-distance relationship, and singularities have prevented cosmologists from understanding obvious facts. For example, how could our galaxy have only spun around 56 times since its formation? Common sense is enough to see through this and understand since there is no evidence for a finite universe, that our galaxy has spun around many more times than that. Can you present evidence of a non-finite universe? The absence of evidence is not, itself, evidence, but it does lend credibility to a statement, "we don't know." I'll go so far as to suggest you will not provide an answer to my question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1872827b-0011-400c-bbb9-bbfa0cbd026en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614177 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:47:32 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/30/2023 10:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:19:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37:48 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > >>> On 6/29/2023 9:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> <snip> > >>>> So, I don't have any theory to propose. I just adhere to what classic physics embraced for 300+ years. > >> > >>> But you do. It is called a retrograde in physics. I don't think > >>> you'll get very far with that. Let me know if you experience a > >>> better reception anywhere else. > >> I don't deny the advances in solid state physics and quantum mechanics, which have help chemistry, metallurgy and other fields tremendously. But I think that particle physics is a sterile science. You can't get the truth of nature by smashing particles into bits and try to figure out how the parts worked together (Heisenberg, circa 1965). These result escalated into new theories, like Gell-Mann QCD, which stuck physics for 60 years and counting. > >> > >> I don't accept the theory of a big bang, with everything born out of a singularity. It's asymmetrical in time and have no sense for me. Plus, it provides much more questions than answers, spreading confusion and a complete loss of meaning, as layers and patches pile up. > >> > >> Leaving aside the world of the quantum and cosmology, with theories valid up to a certain point, what remains is applied > >> science and technology ON EARTHLY THINGS, with real value for civilization. This is not the case of pursuing in pushing the limits of established knowledge more than necessary, just because a new generation of scientists (in increasing number) is available without a clear mission on the usefulness of extending limits one more generation. When the numbers of the limits are being pushed to absurd values, just because money has to be spent to give scientists work to do, someone has to have the clarity of mind to think if such push is worthy, and for what. Then, maybe, it will be found that NEW DIRECTIONS in the development of knowledge have to be radically established. > >> > >> Explain the real use of a new $28 billions LHC, to generate protons with 50 TeV. Or new atomic clocks with stability of 10E-18, or picovolt meters, femtosecond counters, etc. > >> > >> Is that the above projects are to support BBT, with its initial 10E-32 seconds? To find out length of things below 10E-18 mt in the quantum world? To directly measure sub-nanometer lengths in solid state physics? FOR WHAT? > >> To discover what gravity really is, and see if antigravity can be found? To see if a human spacecraft can be accelerated by quantum based engines near the speed of light? To reach Alpha Centauri within a living generation? > >> > >> What has to be clear here is that a small group of relativists, compared with the total number of scientific community, is trying to justify its existence in a world that DON'T NEED THEM. > >> > >> Think about the progress that current knowledge could bring to humanity, IF it were applied to areas in which the progress has been more than slow: Earth sciences, medical sciences, energy generation, food production, education, economy, social sciences, etc. > >> > >> But it seems that nobody want to be aware that the development of knowledge CAN DEGENERATE and, because of that, get stuck in worthless pursuits in science. > >> > >> One thing is clear to me: You CAN'T BEAT NOISE and RANDOMNESS beyond certain limits. And those limits have to be established, say, every 100 years. It would bring clarity of mind for scientific goals. > >> > >> Watch these developments in the important branch of scientific instrumentation: > >> > >> Direct measurement of voltage: > >> Year 1900: 10 milliVolt DC analog resolution. > >> Year 2010: 10 nanoVolt AC/DC 8 1/2 digits resolution, 10 Mhz range, Keysight 3458A. > >> > >> Direct measurement of time duration: > >> Year 1900: 0.1 seconds analog resolution. > >> Year 2010: 1 picosecond digital resolution, HydraHarp 400. > >> > >> Frequency Standards > >> Year 1941: 100 Khz OCXO, 10E-06 per day stability. HP 100B. > >> Year 1991: 5MHz Cesium Beam Primary Frequency Standard, 10E-14/week stability. HP 5071A > >> > >> These are some random examples. > >> > >> Meanwhile, no new antibiotics have been discovered in 50 years, for example. And the new generation of microprocessors > >> is created by brute force to get 2n and 80 billion transistors/chip, which has elevated the power consumption to hundred of > >> watts, forcing the development of new technologies for heat dissipation, which is increasing the cost of desktop computers > >> by 100% or more in the last 5 years. I don't see that these developments are aligned with portability, for instance. > >> > >> There are many more examples about how science and technology are marching towards a dead alley, unless somebody > >> start to think rationally, above greed. > >> > >> There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days. > > Relativity has contributed to the waylaying of cosmology for 100 years. Nonsense like the baseless assumption of a finite universe, the velocity-distance relationship, and singularities have prevented cosmologists from understanding obvious facts. For example, how could our galaxy have only spun around 56 times since its formation? Common sense is enough to see through this and understand since there is no evidence for a finite universe, that our galaxy has spun around many more times than that. > Can you present evidence of a non-finite universe? The absence of > evidence is not, itself, evidence, but it does lend credibility > to a statement, "we don't know." > > I'll go so far as to suggest you will not provide an answer to my > question. Sure, I'm procrastinating from reading, so why not? There is no evidence for a finite universe. That is a baseless assumption that some positivists thought was bright. My view is that since all evidence so far finds no limit to time or space in the universe, it is a practically infinite and practically eternal universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgb8c3Fdfr6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614196 |
On 7/1/2023 11:59 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:47:32 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 6/30/2023 10:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> There are limits, practical limits, that have to be defined, unless it be too late. AI is a very good example, hot topic these days. >>> Relativity has contributed to the waylaying of cosmology for 100 years. Nonsense like the baseless assumption of a finite universe, the velocity-distance relationship, and singularities have prevented cosmologists from understanding obvious facts. For example, how could our galaxy have only spun around 56 times since its formation? Common sense is enough to see through this and understand since there is no evidence for a finite universe, that our galaxy has spun around many more times than that. >> Can you present evidence of a non-finite universe? The absence of >> evidence is not, itself, evidence, but it does lend credibility >> to a statement, "we don't know." >> I'll go so far as to suggest you will not provide an answer to my >> question. > Sure, I'm procrastinating from reading, so why not? There is no evidence for a finite universe. That is a baseless assumption that some positivists thought was bright. My view is that since all evidence so far finds no limit to time or space in the universe, it is a practically infinite and practically eternal universe. Since this is actually a discussion AND a debate, let me carry the discussion one step further. Whenever you come out with a claim for an infinite universe I'll oppose that. And that's precisely what you keep doing. If you actually read what I wrote above, "we don't know" you'd find that all you are doing in a nasty bullish way is agreeing with me. But you're so blinded by some sort of irreconcilable rage that you argue blindly. In science, you, as someone who once claimed to be a scientist, have to understand we do not know or accept facts until we actually know. Your "practically," like logic, is never sufficient. If you came out and said, "I have good reason to believe the universe is infinite" I'd stand and applaud you. But what you're doing is creating "evidence" where it does no exist. As humans we have limitations, and society as a whole accepts and lives within those limitations. That's what you have been arguing against. Whether it takes 15 minutes or a few hundred years to prove your thesis does not matter. I wrote earlier about making a difference where your career is concerned, this isn't it, and you know what I'm talking about. To be clear, sometimes what it takes is to be at the right place at the right time, then and there to recognize an opportunity that practically begs you to take action that "puts you on the map of human progress." The key is to be 24/7/365 alert to such possibilities. You cannot create them out of thin air, IMO. YMMV. To conclude, all we have discovered is a finite universe, so that is what we go with. That we keep discovering that the universe is larger than we thought does not presently permit conclusions that the universe is infinite. It could be that some huge science conference takes up the topic in the near future and elects to accept an infinite universe. But that hasn't happened either. If you live long enough your "infinite universe" will doubtless be accepted. But as the cop writing a careless driving ticket says, "I'll not allow you to slide by cutting corners."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8ed7a2c-f15c-4294-a2b5-57bdc3a4506en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614205 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: <snip> > In science, you, as someone who once claimed to be a scientist, have > to understand we do not know or accept facts until we actually know. <snip> I hope that your rant made you feel better. Then, you worked as a brilliant consultant scientist? With things like: "we do not know or accept facts until we actually know"?. First, your comment is completely illogical. Too bad for a former successful scientist. Secondly, what any branch of science "actually knows" is very short-lived, in the timeline of scientific development. In 1915, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way, with about 20,000 stars, 10,000 ly wide, and being static and eternal. In 1925, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way plus a few dozen galaxies, 1 million ly wide, and being static and eternal. In 1931, the universe was "actually known" to be more than 5 million ly wide, hundred of galaxies and expanding since a big bang start. By then, it was "actually known" that the age of the universe was about 2 billion years, which was in conflict with "known facts" about the age of Earth and the Solar System. https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/expanding.htm In 1950, known facts spread the idea of a Big Bang (Hoyle's coined mocking name), which start to gain more and more adepts in the scientific community. In 1964, "actually known facts" about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), solidly "established" the BBT, with a universe born about 10 billion years ago, Nobel Prize for the two guys. Between 1989 and 2012, specific satellites (COBE, WMAP, PLANCK) confirmed the BBT, the expansion of the universe, the age about 13.5 billion years and the isotropy of celestial density (held since 1923). In recent years, all of the above HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE: the expansion of the universe is accelerating; there is no isotropy but giant galaxy clusters and clusters of galaxy clusters; 13.5 billion ly has come to be the radius OF VISIBLE UNIVERSE, while 46 billion ly has become the radius of THEORETICALLY OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE (just to fit LCDM model, based on GR); 95% of the mass and energ of the universe IS MISSING, so Dark Matter and Energy were INVENTED; etc. CONCLUSION: In 100 years, it's known LESS than in 1920, as the theories are piling up and the IGNORANCE and the CONFUSION reigns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4dcd815-f89a-4aad-b070-7526475d3f36n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614222 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 5:39:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > > <snip> > > In science, you, as someone who once claimed to be a scientist, have > > to understand we do not know or accept facts until we actually know. > <snip> > > I hope that your rant made you feel better. > > Then, you worked as a brilliant consultant scientist? With things like: "we do not know or accept facts until we actually know"?. > > First, your comment is completely illogical. Too bad for a former successful scientist. > > Secondly, what any branch of science "actually knows" is very short-lived, in the timeline of scientific development. > > In 1915, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way, with about 20,000 stars, 10,000 ly wide, and being static and eternal. > In 1925, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way plus a few dozen galaxies, 1 million ly wide, and being static and eternal. > In 1931, the universe was "actually known" to be more than 5 million ly wide, hundred of galaxies and expanding since a big bang start. > By then, it was "actually known" that the age of the universe was about 2 billion years, which was in conflict with "known facts" about > the age of Earth and the Solar System. > > https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/expanding.htm > > In 1950, known facts spread the idea of a Big Bang (Hoyle's coined mocking name), which start to gain more and more adepts in the scientific community. In 1964, "actually known facts" about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), solidly "established" the BBT, > with a universe born about 10 billion years ago, Nobel Prize for the two guys. > > Between 1989 and 2012, specific satellites (COBE, WMAP, PLANCK) confirmed the BBT, the expansion of the universe, the age about > 13.5 billion years and the isotropy of celestial density (held since 1923). > > In recent years, all of the above HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE: the expansion of the universe is accelerating; there is no isotropy but giant > galaxy clusters and clusters of galaxy clusters; 13.5 billion ly has come to be the radius OF VISIBLE UNIVERSE, while 46 billion ly has > become the radius of THEORETICALLY OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE (just to fit LCDM model, based on GR); 95% of the mass and energ > of the universe IS MISSING, so Dark Matter and Energy were INVENTED; etc. > > CONCLUSION: In 100 years, it's known LESS than in 1920, as the theories are piling up and the IGNORANCE and the CONFUSION reigns. Enjoy this timeline on cosmology theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgbi9nFf6u1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614222 |
On 7/1/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > > <snip> > >> In science, you, as someone who once claimed to be a scientist, have >> to understand we do not know or accept facts until we actually know. > > <snip> > > I hope that your rant made you feel better. Oh man, you don't know what a good rant is even though you occasionally engage in them yourself. That's kind of like a cat that looks in a mirror and hisses at itself. > > Then, you worked as a brilliant consultant scientist? With things like: "we do not know or accept facts until we actually know"?. > > First, your comment is completely illogical. I should normally ask you to flesh this out but you're doing such a good job embarrassing yourself I feel no need to add to your disgrace. > Too bad for a former successful scientist. Whatever that means. > Secondly, what any branch of science "actually knows" is very short-lived, in the timeline of scientific development. I see a lot of complaints about the life of "relativity" that's more than a century old now. BTW, dissent is healthy. Lack of progress is not. > In 1915, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way, with about 20,000 stars, 10,000 ly wide, and being static and eternal. > In 1925, the universe was "actually known" to be the Milky Way plus a few dozen galaxies, 1 million ly wide, and being static and eternal. > In 1931, the universe was "actually known" to be more than 5 million ly wide, hundred of galaxies and expanding since a big bang start. > By then, it was "actually known" that the age of the universe was about 2 billion years, which was in conflict with "known facts" about > the age of Earth and the Solar System. > > https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/expanding.htm > > In 1950, known facts spread the idea of a Big Bang (Hoyle's coined mocking name), which start to gain more and more adepts in the scientific community. In 1964, "actually known facts" about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), solidly "established" the BBT, > with a universe born about 10 billion years ago, Nobel Prize for the two guys. > > Between 1989 and 2012, specific satellites (COBE, WMAP, PLANCK) confirmed the BBT, the expansion of the universe, the age about > 13.5 billion years and the isotropy of celestial density (held since 1923). > > In recent years, all of the above HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE: the expansion of the universe is accelerating; there is no isotropy but giant > galaxy clusters and clusters of galaxy clusters; 13.5 billion ly has come to be the radius OF VISIBLE UNIVERSE, while 46 billion ly has > become the radius of THEORETICALLY OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE (just to fit LCDM model, based on GR); 95% of the mass and energ > of the universe IS MISSING, so Dark Matter and Energy were INVENTED; etc. > > CONCLUSION: In 100 years, it's known LESS than in 1920, as the theories are piling up and the IGNORANCE and the CONFUSION reigns. AFAIC recognition of our ignorance is itself a form of progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u7q44o$319m7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614224 |
On 7/1/2023 1:57 PM, whodat wrote: > On 7/1/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: [...] Fwiw, this cat is pissed off! lol: https://youtu.be/w0ffwDYo00Q ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web