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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Michaes Egonidis <esnh@soddssei.si> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8cqcm$3slof$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614805 |
Jim Pennino wrote: >>> Kiev founded 482. Moscow founded 1142. First Russian conquest of >>> Ukraine 1654. >> >> kiev and "ukraine" are Russian, you fucking imbecile. Read wikipedia. >> About 87% of ukraine is Russian population Christians. > > Thanks to the Russian conquest of the Ukraine in 1654. this retard proves he can't read wikipedia. "ukrainians" does not exists, but a bunch of brainwashed khazar goys, thinking they are "arians", wanting to steal a country. Work of fucking america and uk, wanting europe dead. *_Man_Brilliantly_Explains_What_Ukraine_War_Is_Really_All_About_* For The Empire https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/ohVUvt5d6kc8 *_Prigozhin_a_wannabe_Businessman_wanker_*, a parasite, not a Military Commander https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/ZS0UYo3TZHAl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 13:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8esin$26jmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614805 |
On 7/8/2023 6:32 PM, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics Bondie Antonopoulos <oebo@niononud.te> wrote: >> Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>>> the fucking nazi ukraine is not a country, idiot. It can't agree or >>>> disagree in anything. It got partial self_dependence 1994 under special >>>> condition, they violated. You fucking immigrant of america. You have >>>> nothing to do in ukraine, europe and everywhere. You'll soon be kicked >>>> out of all countries you occupied. Fuck off. You are a >>>> *_terrorist_country_*. >>> >>> Kiev founded 482. Moscow founded 1142. >>> First Russian conquest of Ukraine 1654. >> >> kiev and "ukraine" are Russian, you fucking imbecile. Read wikipedia. >> About 87% of ukraine is Russian population Christians. > > Thanks to the Russian conquest of the Ukraine in 1654. > > And later Russian offenses like the Soviet Union conquering/annexing Ukraine in the 1920s, the Holodomor where Russians genocided Ukrainians and moved ethnic Russians into empty villages, expulsion of Tatars from Crimea, again with Russians moving into empty villages, Soviets forcing the Russian language onto Ukrainians (which is why nearly all Ukrainians can speak Russian if they have to) etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lf9rnj-7bj21.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #614842 |
In sci.physics Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 7/8/2023 6:32 PM, Jim Pennino wrote: >> In sci.physics Bondie Antonopoulos <oebo@niononud.te> wrote: >>> Jim Pennino wrote: >>> >>>>> the fucking nazi ukraine is not a country, idiot. It can't agree or >>>>> disagree in anything. It got partial self_dependence 1994 under special >>>>> condition, they violated. You fucking immigrant of america. You have >>>>> nothing to do in ukraine, europe and everywhere. You'll soon be kicked >>>>> out of all countries you occupied. Fuck off. You are a >>>>> *_terrorist_country_*. >>>> >>>> Kiev founded 482. Moscow founded 1142. >>>> First Russian conquest of Ukraine 1654. >>> >>> kiev and "ukraine" are Russian, you fucking imbecile. Read wikipedia. >>> About 87% of ukraine is Russian population Christians. >> >> Thanks to the Russian conquest of the Ukraine in 1654. >> >> > And later Russian offenses like the Soviet Union conquering/annexing > Ukraine in the 1920s, the Holodomor where Russians genocided Ukrainians > and moved ethnic Russians into empty villages, expulsion of Tatars from > Crimea, again with Russians moving into empty villages, Soviets forcing > the Russian language onto Ukrainians (which is why nearly all Ukrainians > can speak Russian if they have to) etc. Like I said, Russia has ALWAYS been an asshole, imperialistic, warmonger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Egonidis <noig@iegoiiio.nf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8etoi$8dfu$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614842 |
Volney wrote: > On 7/8/2023 6:32 PM, Jim Pennino wrote: >>> kiev and "ukraine" are Russian, you fucking imbecile. Read wikipedia. >>> About 87% of ukraine is Russian population Christians. >> Thanks to the Russian conquest of the Ukraine in 1654. >> > And later Russian offenses like the Soviet Union conquering/annexing you stinking immigrant of america. Cacamerica is fucked up and over. You are going to suck dicks. The bidona, fbi, cia, nato, EU etc going deep in prison, or judged by the people and executed. Proofs. *_THE_LUCIFERIAN-WORLD_ORDER_IS_GOING_DOWN_IN_FLAMES_[2023-07-08]_* - KENAN (VIDEO) https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/8lLWSNuBW9XX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef38f400-67bc-4f71-8b85-3107c3a68af3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614587 |
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 Nothing faulty about the arguments. Are you going to stand with Einstein or not? Most still do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3889ca53-8a28-469e-87b3-b7c9cad0df55n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614563 |
On July 6, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. At a circus on the moon (no air resistance, you see), two snipers face each other, at different altitudes. One at ground level, the other at distance 100 meters, on a platform 50 meters high. Their trick is to shoot towards each other, such that the bullets collide, mid-air (so to speak). At what angles should they aim? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7f4a93c-0e70-412f-837a-24eddb335e41n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614655 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > On July 6, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > At a circus on the moon (no air resistance, you see), two > snipers face each other, at different altitudes. One at > ground level, the other at distance 100 meters, on a > platform 50 meters high. > > Their trick is to shoot towards each other, such that the bullets > collide, mid-air (so to speak). At what angles should they aim? > > -- > Rich Whatever ordinary ballistics dictates for a vacuum and 1/6th g.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a63821ef-817c-48c7-a1ea-f2517221c758n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614662 |
On July 7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> At a circus on the moon (no air resistance, you see), two >> snipers face each other, at different altitudes. One at >> ground level, the other at distance 100 meters, on a >> platform 50 meters high. >> Their trick is to shoot towards each other, such that the bullets >> collide, mid-air (so to speak). At what angles should they aim? > > Whatever ordinary ballistics dictates for a vacuum and 1/6th g. uh huh Can you be more specific? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deangelo Sfakianos <enoe@adaonlnd.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u89p1i$3dq51$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614655 |
RichD wrote: > At a circus on the moon (no air resistance, you see), two snipers face > each other, at different altitudes. One at ground level, the other at > distance 100 meters, on a platform 50 meters high. > Their trick is to shoot towards each other, such that the bullets > collide, mid-air (so to speak). At what angles should they aim? Mr. Putin. Play hard ball before it is too late. Make a preemptive blow with the same stuff or a little heavier even. No time to waste. Let them know this is a line that should not be passed. Make them suffer real hard. That is the only thing they understand. Turn up the heat! The khazar goy Zelensky and his predominantly khazar goy staff recently said that they want as many Russians dead as possible. This does not necessarily mean Russian troops, *_but_Russian_civilians_*. This is now Russia's problem for not taking out Zelensky and staff many months ago, when myself and others here were saying to do this. This didn't happen because Putin gets his orders from Tel Aviv, just like his US partners - disgusting and 100% fact. This is my primary and biggest issue with President Putin, kissing Israeli rearends at the expense of his own country Russia and fellow partners - namely Syria and Iran. Another worthwhile investment made by Biden on behalf of Senator Lindsay Graham, To "kill Russians", *_not_excluding,_women_and_children_*. What a despicable low life. This shows the cruelty of the US has no conscience. It is a morally bankrupt country. It’s official folks; Biden and his national security team are a bunch of sick faulks. Illegal! Little by little they will approve everything, bio-weapons next, nukes at the end. OPEN YOUR EYES, ZELENSKI ATTACKS UPON THE RUSSIAN GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, BIDEN FUNDS PALESTINIAN PAY FOR SLAY, FULLY ARMS THE TALIBAN, ZELENSKI IS A MUSLIM HIDING IN SHEEPS CLOTHING. #####$ ALL THOSE WEAPONS GIVEN TO ZELENSKI WILL SOON BE USED AGAINST Christians and Jews. Its time, to break out the tactical battle field nukes. *_White_House_confirms_transfer_of_controversial_cluster_bombs_to_Ukraine_* https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/579358-us-ukraine-cluster-munition/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99653a23-8534-465b-8575-42d7e545dc3bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614563 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS. The MMX is not supposed to be at relativistic speeds. THEN WHAT DOES RELATIVITY EXPLAIN? NOT THE MMX! THEN IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE NULL RESULT! "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles 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 "Yet the official ideology teaches that the Michelson-Morley experiment played a crucial role in the emergence of Einstein's special relativity, and the scientific community believes it." Satellites are not at such speeds, but there is an adjustment for SR time dilation. THE EARTH IN THE MMX IS GOING FASTER THAN THE SATELLITES.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgs4nfF3br5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614718 |
On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. > > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. > You seem unable to post without blundering. Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and Newtonian mechanics is not small. Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the measurement. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1be7e8e8-2353-4182-b699-ec79373d7ef9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614723 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > > I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. > > > > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. > > > You seem unable to post without blundering. > > Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is > that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics > is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a > relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and > Newtonian mechanics is not small. > > Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the > measurement. > > Sylvia. I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 14:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgs8jmF3vj2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614727 |
On 08-July-23 1:52 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. >>> I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. >>> >>> Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. >>> >> You seem unable to post without blundering. >> >> Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is >> that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics >> is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a >> relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and >> Newtonian mechanics is not small. >> >> Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the >> measurement. >> >> Sylvia. > I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does. Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6900f0d6-d87c-4768-a60d-c0d094e70b9cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614744 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:56:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 08-July-23 1:52 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > >>> I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. > >>> > >>> Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. > >>> > >> You seem unable to post without blundering. > >> > >> Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is > >> that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics > >> is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a > >> relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and > >> Newtonian mechanics is not small. > >> > >> Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the > >> measurement. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does. > Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX. > > Sylvia. The important point is that it should but it doesn't. If light did not share the velocity of the source the perpendicular beam would have been delayed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 10:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgueejFel5bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614772 |
On 09-July-23 3:32 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:56:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 08-July-23 1:52 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. >>>>> I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source. >>>>> >>>>> Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. >>>>> >>>> You seem unable to post without blundering. >>>> >>>> Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is >>>> that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics >>>> is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a >>>> relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and >>>> Newtonian mechanics is not small. >>>> >>>> Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the >>>> measurement. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does. >> Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX. >> >> Sylvia. > The important point is that it should but it doesn't. If light did not share the velocity of the source the perpendicular beam would have been delayed. Or something else is going on. You still seem to have a problem with logical reasoning. The proposition if X then Y tells you that X is false when Y is false, but says nothing about X when Y is true. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eed3b6e1-e207-4763-b150-b3e2c0b9efe6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614772 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:32:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > If light did not share the velocity of the source... You use the phrase "share the velocity of the source", but that isn't the point of disagreement, because we can describe your disagreement without even mentioning any "source", as follows: Consider two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', represented by grids of standard rulers and clocks, with each set being at rest and inertially synchronized in their respective frames. Suppose S' is moving with speed u in the negative x direction in terms of S. Now, some physical entity (it could be a particle or a pulse of light or whatever) is moving in the positive x direction at speed v in terms of S. What's the speed of that entity in terms of S' ? You believe the answer is u+v, whereas it is actually (u+v)/(1 + uv/c^2). Setting aside this disagreement, the point I'd ask you to consider is that I've not mentioned a "source" of the entity, and yet we have a clear statement of the disagreement. So, your disagreement isn't fundamentally about "sharing the velocity of the source". It's about how standard inertial coordinate systems are related to each other. Notice that if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, your belief would be correct, but if those two standard inertial coordinate systems are related by a Lorentz transformation, your belief is incorrect. So this is really what you ought to focus on, if you want to resolve the disagreement: Are standard inertial coordinate systems related by Galilean transformations or by Lorentz transformations? The answer depends on whether energy has inertia. Spoiler: It does, but Galileo and Newton did not know this - not surprisingly, since a quantity of bound energy E has inertia corresponding to kE, where the factor k is extremely close to zero. In fact, it has the value k = 1/V^2, where V happens to be the speed of massless energy propagation in vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 12:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u8dt78$23fkl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614772 |
On 2023-07-08 17:32:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:56:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX. >> Sylvia. > The important point is that it should but it doesn't. If light did not > share the velocity of the source the perpendicular beam would have been > delayed. The important point is that apparently you are trying to fool your readers with a straw man fallacy. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 00:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8an8g$1ks4t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614718 |
On 7/7/2023 11:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. It depends on the needed accuracy. For example, if a train moves at 100 km/hr and a passenger fires a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000 km/hr forward, calculate the ground speed of the bullet using Newtonian mechanics and again using SR. > > HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS. So you admit it can be detected! So you admit relativity is real! Good start, you are on the way of being cured of delusional thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <687c840c-8bc3-4ccb-984d-a5e0451cb0d5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614729 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:04:35 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/7/2023 11:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. > It depends on the needed accuracy. > > For example, if a train moves at 100 km/hr and a passenger fires a gun > with a muzzle velocity of 1000 km/hr forward, calculate the ground speed > of the bullet using Newtonian mechanics and again using SR. > > > > HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS. > So you admit it can be detected! So you admit relativity is real! Of course your epidemic hysteria is real, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efdc26b6-92fa-4370-89d8-e09ed4abef04n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614729 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:04:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/7/2023 11:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds. > It depends on the needed accuracy. > > For example, if a train moves at 100 km/hr and a passenger fires a gun > with a muzzle velocity of 1000 km/hr forward, calculate the ground speed > of the bullet using Newtonian mechanics and again using SR. > > > > HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS. > So you admit it can be detected! So you admit relativity is real! Good > start, you are on the way of being cured of delusional thinking. The GPS corrects for the atomic clocks moving faster in lower gravity after inductively obtaining the data of 38 microseconds per day and then relativity pretends to explain it and claims that it includes 7 microseconds for SR. There is no use for GR or SR in this. This is called instrumental error not relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web