Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614563 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-06 11:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-07 20:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:09 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:14 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:19 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-07 15:26 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:14 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 09:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 14:57 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 13:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:30 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 16:34 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 16:52 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:57 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 17:04 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 16:31 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:02 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 12:09 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-08 01:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:48 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 15:17 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 16:03 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 16:06 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-06 11:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 23:07 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 14:46 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-06 21:07 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:11 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 10:14 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:40 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 10:57 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 12:43 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Kalaki Kalacos <oiis@nnnhgsoi.nd> - 2023-07-07 17:55 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 12:28 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:10 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-09 11:59 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-09 15:09 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 18:15 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:13 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 14:22 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Duston Pantelakos <eats@sonknkdt.tt> - 2023-07-07 21:15 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:20 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 13:45 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 22:54 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 21:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 10:10 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 09:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:09 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 18:30 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 18:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-08 03:16 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:08 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-08 03:33 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:31 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 00:45 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-08 09:49 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 18:49 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 12:20 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 02:24 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:00 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 17:37 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:53 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-08 11:52 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 12:50 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 09:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 23:55 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:07 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:42 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:45 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 22:00 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:33 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 16:07 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:10 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 16:59 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 22:31 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:42 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:02 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-08 18:54 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:58 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 14:15 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 19:29 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:19 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Norge Brisimitzakis <niig@tbirsnii.ie> - 2023-07-07 18:31 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:36 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 19:06 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 20:47 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:50 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 21:12 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:26 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 17:40 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 18:51 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mervin Paraskevopoulos <eepk@aupoavsa.sl> - 2023-07-07 18:19 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 17:28 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bertin Lolos <rblb@ltinllrt.ot> - 2023-07-07 21:53 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 23:46 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Nolberto Eliopoulos <looo@btoloene.pb> - 2023-07-08 19:29 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-08 12:58 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bondie Antonopoulos <oebo@niononud.te> - 2023-07-08 20:36 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-08 15:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Michaes Egonidis <esnh@soddssei.si> - 2023-07-08 23:10 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:59 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-09 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jeff Egonidis <noig@iegoiiio.nf> - 2023-07-09 18:20 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 14:56 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 11:06 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:22 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 14:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Deangelo Sfakianos <enoe@adaonlnd.eo> - 2023-07-07 19:28 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 13:50 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:52 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 14:56 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-09 10:48 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 19:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-09 12:04 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 00:04 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:32 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 15:03 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:20 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:39 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:50 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d13e74a-09fe-44dc-86c0-539c1decfd2dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614640 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 17:11:05 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > I'll say once again, new advances may topple relativity, I don't > know for sure whether or not something/someone will, but that hasn't > happened yet. And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd545d6a-f6e2-4176-934b-e74bfc9a0113n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614640 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:11:05 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/6/2023 11:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > >>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > >>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > >>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > >>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > >>>>> constancy of the speed of light. > >>>> Of course it didn't. > >>>> Why kick down this open door once again? > >>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > >>>> > >>>> Jan > >>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > >> what all the experimental results stated. > > >> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > >> belief in a constant speed of light?) > > > A steel man of the first postulate: Galileo said everything in the ships cabin shares the velocity of the source. > > A steel man f he second postulate: Einstein said light does not. > > The second does not follow from the first. > Here's the problem in a nutshell. Science is always logical. Even > heliocentrism made sense in the context of what was being observed > and known at the time. The difficulty of "makes no sense" occurs > because we don't have *all* the facts.. Science always runs ahead > of common knowledge. > > For example, Einstein explained (maybe you didn't catch it) that > an "aether" transmits light through space, and explained that > he didn't know what that was. See his 1920 speech to which I've > posted a link several times. > > I'll say once again, new advances may topple relativity, I don't > know for sure whether or not something/someone will, but that hasn't > happened yet. Relativity is not logical, so it is not science. Relativity has never stood examination, so it has never been necessary to topple it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XZby-EqnnwOFz70aQVkhvRMRWw4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614656 |
Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > Relativity is not logical, so it is not science. The theory of relativity does not resist thinkers like the dictator Hachel (that's me). One cannot constantly deceive a whole people. Some things become visible, like theoretical contradictions or experimental oddities that make the whole dogma false if the basis of the reasoning remains true. The bases are the Poincaré transformations. Dogma is what has been built on it and tons of falsehoods added. It's a shame that the cranks hit where they shouldn't. The weak point of the theory is the apparent realtivist speeds. They are not compatible with the notion of covariance, which is a shame. It is also a pity that we do not develop enough, experimental criticisms like the work of Aspect which prove that Dr. Hachel is right. I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel) and not the Angli-Saxon school (Einstein, Hawking, etc...) which has deflected the current much more than carry it further. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <soOYiBQHBEUkIAeRTJQx_0i6L5U@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614663 |
Le 07/07/2023 à 20:30, Richard Hachel a écrit : > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > The bases are the Poincaré transformations. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?soOYiBQHBEUkIAeRTJQx_0i6L5U@jntp/Data.Media:1> R.H. -- <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=soOYiBQHBEUkIAeRTJQx_0i6L5U@jntp>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 03:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8ade8$1g7v0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614665 |
Le 07/07/2023 à 20:33, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:30, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > >> The bases are the Poincaré transformations. > > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?soOYiBQHBEUkIAeRTJQx_0i6L5U@jntp/Data.Media:1> starting with t = t' = 0 is quite surprising for a transformation equations set that is (by definition) supposed to work for any t (or t'). I doubt (not !) that Poincaré wrote such a idiocy, Lengrand. (fu2 fr.sci.physique) Il est curieux qu'un ensemble d'équations décrivant une transformation entre systèmes de coordonnées commence par t = t' = 0 alors qu'il est supposé (par définition) fonctionner pour tout t (ou t'). Je doute fort que Poincaré a jamais écrit une telle stupidité, Lengruche. tic tac
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89145956-9f52-4fcf-8fd5-a7b8c7db0b93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614709 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 03:16:59 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:33, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:30, Richard Hachel a écrit : > >> Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > > > >> The bases are the Poincaré transformations. > > > > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?soOYiBQHBEUkIAeRTJQx_0i6L5U@jntp/Data.Media:1> > starting with t = t' = 0 is quite surprising for a transformation Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying again to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 03:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8aecf$1gbqu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614663 |
Le 07/07/2023 à 20:30, Richard Hachel a écrit : ... > I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms > of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel) and not the Angli-Saxon school > (Einstein, Hawking, etc...) which has deflected the current much more > than carry it further. What an idiot... Yet you are a M.D. Lengrand? Who the people who invented your practices (medicine) were from? No British? No German? You are putting people's health at risk M.D. Lengrand. tic tac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 09:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgshm6F5ckdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614663 |
On 2023-07-07 18:30:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > >> Relativity is not logical, so it is not science. > > The theory of relativity does not resist thinkers like the dictator > Hachel (that's me). > > One cannot constantly deceive a whole people. > Some things become visible, like theoretical contradictions or > experimental oddities that make the whole dogma false if the basis of > the reasoning remains true. > > The bases are the Poincaré transformations. > > Dogma is what has been built on it and tons of falsehoods added. > > It's a shame that the cranks hit where they shouldn't. The weak point > of the theory is the apparent realtivist speeds. They are not > compatible with the notion of covariance, which is a shame. > > It is also a pity that we do not develop enough, experimental > criticisms like the work of Aspect which prove that Dr. Hachel is right. > > I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms > of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel Golly. He really does think he belongs in the same list as Poincaré. I doubt whether Poincaré would agree. > ) and not the Angli-Saxon school (Einstein Einstein was German, not "Anglo-Saxon". > , Hawking, etc...) which has deflected the current much more than carry > it further. > > R.H. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8443fc9b-3ec9-4f73-913f-274c169f48efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614749 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 09:31:23 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-07 18:30:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > > > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > > > >> Relativity is not logical, so it is not science. > > > > The theory of relativity does not resist thinkers like the dictator > > Hachel (that's me). > > > > One cannot constantly deceive a whole people. > > Some things become visible, like theoretical contradictions or > > experimental oddities that make the whole dogma false if the basis of > > the reasoning remains true. > > > > The bases are the Poincaré transformations. > > > > Dogma is what has been built on it and tons of falsehoods added. > > > > It's a shame that the cranks hit where they shouldn't. The weak point > > of the theory is the apparent realtivist speeds. They are not > > compatible with the notion of covariance, which is a shame. > > > > It is also a pity that we do not develop enough, experimental > > criticisms like the work of Aspect which prove that Dr. Hachel is right. > > > > I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms > > of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel > > Golly. He really does think he belongs in the same list as Poincaré. I > doubt whether Poincaré would agree. I doubt it too, but I don't have any doubts that he didn't agree with your insane bunch about rejecting basic [Euclidean] math. He's written it very clearly, you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 09:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9e1KJCmGdr1InhiNWNuj-wjDUb8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614749 |
Le 08/07/2023 à 09:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > > Einstein was German, not "Anglo-Saxon". Les allemands sont plus saxons que les français. La saxe est d'ailleurs en Allemagne. Mais nous occultons le vrai problème. Le grand problème de l'époque était la domination du monde (il l'est encore aujourd'hui) par la culture anglo-saxonne. Beaucoup reconnaissent aujourd'hui qu'on a donné un Nobel à Einstein dans le seul but de le refuser à Poincaré. Un scandale a eu lieu, les français ont quitté la salle. Mis devant leur slip pas très propre, les gens du comité Nobel ont alors rappelé les français, et déclaré qu'effectivement, c'est Poincaré qui avait mérité le Nobel, et donc qu'on ne pouvait pas attribuer le Nobel à Einstein pour la théorie de la relativité. On trouva donc rapidement une demi-page d'Einstein portant sur l'effet photo-électrique, et on lui attribua le Nobel pour ça. Mais le but était simple : ne surtout pas attribuer un Nobel à la France pour une théorie qui allait révolutionner le monde. L'ennemi, c'était Poincaré. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 18:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgrmk2F1b5eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614656 |
On 7/7/2023 1:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:11:05 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/6/2023 11:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, >>>>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It >>>>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does >>>>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still >>>>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the >>>>>>> constancy of the speed of light. >>>>>> Of course it didn't. >>>>>> Why kick down this open door once again? >>>>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments) >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan >>>>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. >>>> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the >>>> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's >>>> what all the experimental results stated. >> >>>> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for >>>> belief in a constant speed of light?) >> >>> A steel man of the first postulate: Galileo said everything in the ships cabin shares the velocity of the source. >>> A steel man f he second postulate: Einstein said light does not. >>> The second does not follow from the first. >> Here's the problem in a nutshell. Science is always logical. Even >> heliocentrism made sense in the context of what was being observed >> and known at the time. The difficulty of "makes no sense" occurs >> because we don't have *all* the facts.. Science always runs ahead >> of common knowledge. >> >> For example, Einstein explained (maybe you didn't catch it) that >> an "aether" transmits light through space, and explained that >> he didn't know what that was. See his 1920 speech to which I've >> posted a link several times. >> >> I'll say once again, new advances may topple relativity, I don't >> know for sure whether or not something/someone will, but that hasn't >> happened yet. > Relativity is not logical, so it is not science. Relativity has > never stood examination, so it has never been necessary to topple it. Sorry, you're illogical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 12:20 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u88lci$19hnf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614596 |
On 2023-07-07 01:07:13 +0000, Volney said: > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > belief in a constant speed of light?) People who don't understand logic or don't expect their audience to understand it often present false reasons and pretend they support their (usually false) claims. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 02:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f28a107-a7c8-4129-a584-1a8ee49577ccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614619 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 11:20:21 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > On 2023-07-07 01:07:13 +0000, Volney said: > > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > > belief in a constant speed of light?) > People who don't understand logic or don't expect their audience to > understand it often present false reasons and pretend they support > their (usually false) claims. Oh, for sure you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e98719b7-0143-4fb9-ba81-d3b5b068eda1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614596 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > >>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > >>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > >>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > >>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > >>> constancy of the speed of light. > >> Of course it didn't. > >> Why kick down this open door once again? > >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > >> > >> Jan > > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > what all the experimental results stated. > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > belief in a constant speed of light?) I don't have my primary source handy because I'm not very interested in criticizin Einstein, but, thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92. So it is strange you did not recognize this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 17:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u897ul$1bphp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614629 |
On 2023-07-07 14:00:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's >> what all the experimental results stated. > thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein > resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa > icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as > his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when > thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity > and Its Roots, p.92. The quote does not even mention the Michelson-Morely experiment, so does not contradict what Volney said. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60cc678c-d1c8-421e-a1ec-f4482e233ff7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614632 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 16:37:13 UTC+2, Mikko wrote: > On 2023-07-07 14:00:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > >> what all the experimental results stated. > > thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein > > resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa > > icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as > > his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when > > thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity > > and Its Roots, p.92. > The quote does not even mention the Michelson-Morely experiment, so > does not contradict what Volney said. But even some of your bunch of idiots (JJ) have realized, that that nonsensical assumption had never any basement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f88be140-b1c8-4b5c-bd00-76eafe0673b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614632 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:37:13 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote: > On 2023-07-07 14:00:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > >> what all the experimental results stated. > > thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein > > resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa > > icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as > > his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when > > thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity > > and Its Roots, p.92. > The quote does not even mention the Michelson-Morely experiment, so > does not contradict what Volney said. > > Mikko The null result was from the MMX so you are obviously mistaken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 11:52 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u8b849$1mndr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614654 |
On 2023-07-07 18:05:14 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:37:13 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote: >> On 2023-07-07 14:00:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>> thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein >>> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa >>> icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as >>> his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when >>> thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity >>> and Its Roots, p.92. >> The quote does not even mention the Michelson-Morely experiment, so> >> does not contradict what Volney said. > The null result was from the MMX so you are obviously mistaken. If you think so then point the expression "Michelson-Morely experiment" or its synonym in the text quoted by Valev. Until then we may think that you are just lying. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 12:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u89fp3$1cnd7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614629 |
On 7/7/2023 10:00 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, >>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It >>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does >>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still >>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the >>>>> constancy of the speed of light. >>>> Of course it didn't. >>>> Why kick down this open door once again? >>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments) >>>> >>>> Jan >>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's >> what all the experimental results stated. >> >> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for >> belief in a constant speed of light?) > I don't have my primary source handy because I'm not very interested in criticizin Einstein, but, thanks to Pentcho Valev Stop right there. Pentcho is just about the nuttiest relativity crackpot ever to darken this newsgroup. I already told you this. Half of his references don't claim what Pentcho claims, the rest are cranks just as nutty as he is. <snip rest, unread>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2f457ff-1372-47af-8fb7-96b2a521e04en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614644 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 18:50:46 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/7/2023 10:00 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > >>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > >>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > >>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > >>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > >>>>> constancy of the speed of light. > >>>> Of course it didn't. > >>>> Why kick down this open door once again? > >>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > >>>> > >>>> Jan > >>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > > >> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > >> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > >> what all the experimental results stated. > >> > >> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > >> belief in a constant speed of light?) > > > I don't have my primary source handy because I'm not very interested in criticizin Einstein, but, thanks to Pentcho Valev > Stop right there. Pentcho is just about the nuttiest relativity crackpot And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web