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 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab6611fe-d8ca-47cf-a40d-07146b8d1ae0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614777 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > I have studied skeptics like Michael Shermer and The Skeptical Inquirer and they have their biases too. You have the mentality of a lemming but there is little safety in numbers. For example, there is the ridiculous beliefs in AGW, which just depends on which baseline you choose to claim a warming trend. There is plenty of safety in numbers, and that certainly holds true for AGW... https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/ "...If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity." So, you apparently believe that siding with the O.1% of publishing climate scientists who deny AGW makes you smarter than the 99.9% who do? You are apparently at least somewhat delusional. Perhaps this is relevant, perhaps not, but it is nevertheless hot off the presses... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-07/climate-change-average-temperature-record-thursday/102577828 "Earth's average temperature has set a new unofficial record high once again, the fourth day in a row it has broken or equalled such a milestone." Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job and that man never went to the moon?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b64ff44-7e24-4afe-b0e9-be0d636e04b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614782 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:22:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > I have studied skeptics like Michael Shermer and The Skeptical Inquirer and they have their biases too. You have the mentality of a lemming but there is little safety in numbers. For example, there is the ridiculous beliefs in AGW, which just depends on which baseline you choose to claim a warming trend. > There is plenty of safety in numbers, and that certainly holds true for AGW... > > https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/ > > "...If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity." > > So, you apparently believe that siding with the O.1% of publishing climate scientists who deny AGW makes you smarter than the 99.9% who do? You are apparently at least somewhat delusional. > > Perhaps this is relevant, perhaps not, but it is nevertheless hot off the presses... > > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-07/climate-change-average-temperature-record-thursday/102577828 > > "Earth's average temperature has set a new unofficial record high once again, the fourth day in a row it has broken or equalled such a milestone." > > Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job and that man never went to the moon? It's too bad you have a habit of falling for ideologies. You must believe Marxism is intelligent. BTW the harvester was known in Marx's time, yet he still came up with his labor theory of value. Very stupid. You stick with the lemmings where you belong. You don't have the spine to look through the telescope. There is nothing but evidence against the Big Bang and AGW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d3b23e2-7b09-48b7-89cd-84633554350cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614786 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:22:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > I have studied skeptics like Michael Shermer and The Skeptical Inquirer and they have their biases too. You have the mentality of a lemming but there is little safety in numbers. For example, there is the ridiculous beliefs in AGW, which just depends on which baseline you choose to claim a warming trend. > > There is plenty of safety in numbers, and that certainly holds true for AGW... > > > > https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/ > > > > "...If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity." > > > > So, you apparently believe that siding with the O.1% of publishing climate scientists who deny AGW makes you smarter than the 99.9% who do? You are apparently at least somewhat delusional. > > > > Perhaps this is relevant, perhaps not, but it is nevertheless hot off the presses... > > > > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-07/climate-change-average-temperature-record-thursday/102577828 > > > > "Earth's average temperature has set a new unofficial record high once again, the fourth day in a row it has broken or equalled such a milestone." > > > > Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job and that man never went to the moon? There is nothing but evidence against the Big Bang and AGW. And yet, you have failed to present any of that so-called evidence! Not a shred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <589b07c1-5a04-4981-b091-fdd738e06933n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614791 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:32:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:22:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > I have studied skeptics like Michael Shermer and The Skeptical Inquirer and they have their biases too. You have the mentality of a lemming but there is little safety in numbers. For example, there is the ridiculous beliefs in AGW, which just depends on which baseline you choose to claim a warming trend. > > > There is plenty of safety in numbers, and that certainly holds true for AGW... > > > > > > https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/ > > > > > > "...If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity." > > > > > > So, you apparently believe that siding with the O.1% of publishing climate scientists who deny AGW makes you smarter than the 99.9% who do? You are apparently at least somewhat delusional. > > > > > > Perhaps this is relevant, perhaps not, but it is nevertheless hot off the presses... > > > > > > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-07/climate-change-average-temperature-record-thursday/102577828 > > > > > > "Earth's average temperature has set a new unofficial record high once again, the fourth day in a row it has broken or equalled such a milestone." > > > > > > Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job and that man never went to the moon? > There is nothing but evidence against the Big Bang and AGW. > And yet, you have failed to present any of that so-called evidence! Not a shred. Your head is in the sand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85245269-785d-4e28-a6c0-11aa2ea950d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614792 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:32:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:22:38 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > > > I have studied skeptics like Michael Shermer and The Skeptical Inquirer and they have their biases too. You have the mentality of a lemming but there is little safety in numbers. For example, there is the ridiculous beliefs in AGW, which just depends on which baseline you choose to claim a warming trend. > > > > There is plenty of safety in numbers, and that certainly holds true for AGW... > > > > > > > > https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/ > > > > > > > > "...If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity." > > > > > > > > So, you apparently believe that siding with the O.1% of publishing climate scientists who deny AGW makes you smarter than the 99.9% who do? You are apparently at least somewhat delusional. > > > > > > > > Perhaps this is relevant, perhaps not, but it is nevertheless hot off the presses... > > > > > > > > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-07/climate-change-average-temperature-record-thursday/102577828 > > > > > > > > "Earth's average temperature has set a new unofficial record high once again, the fourth day in a row it has broken or equalled such a milestone." > > > > > > > > Do you also believe that 911 was an inside job and that man never went to the moon? > > There is nothing but evidence against the Big Bang and AGW. > > And yet, you have failed to present any of that so-called evidence! Not a shred. > Your head is in the sand. Again, go look in a mirror...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3181b538-9b13-47f1-b0ca-43727377a0d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614774 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > Jan > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8fb5536-b033-4ee6-8527-b7ea47738e5an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614778 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. Absolutely... for now... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59d8ba9e-046f-416f-a264-64113dacafc8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614779 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 21:03:27 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > Absolutely... for now... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event See, Al - any idiot can write "empirical evidence strongly favors", but as you said yourself: logic has nothing in common with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4da6bb2-dd5b-4049-9ef6-20cb3bf5b4f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614779 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > Absolutely... for now... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a03f43d5-d1da-4bcd-823e-f9e481913322n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614785 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:56:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > > Absolutely... for now... > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! > You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like... I'm pretty sure that I am not the ignorant one in this thread. My evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of textbooks and peer-reviewed research papers all around the world and taught in the 23,000+ universities in the world. Your own evidence is where, exactly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa588482-ab27-4f7f-8082-0f13397e20cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614794 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:39:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:56:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > > > Absolutely... for now... > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > > > > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > > > > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > > > > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! > > > You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like... > I'm pretty sure that I am not the ignorant one in this thread. My evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of textbooks and peer-reviewed research papers all around the world and taught in the 23,000+ universities in the world. Your own evidence is where, exactly? You'll have to get of your ass to look through the telescope. There is no point discussing with one who refuses to examine the criticisms of relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c1e4912-d427-4de2-8739-3504b85cf46en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614796 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:47:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:39:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:56:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > > > > Absolutely... for now... > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > > > > > > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > > > > > > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > > > > > > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! > > > > > You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like... > > I'm pretty sure that I am not the ignorant one in this thread. My evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of textbooks and peer-reviewed research papers all around the world and taught in the 23,000+ universities in the world. Your own evidence is where, exactly? > You'll have to get of your ass to look through the telescope. There is no point discussing with one who refuses to examine the criticisms of relativity. Before you can criticize a theory it is essential that you fully understand that theory. I mean, *really* understand it. If a heart surgeon explains to you in layman's terms what he is going to be doing to you in an upcoming surgery you certainly would not be telling him that you would prefer that he does it "your" way because you read about some new procedure somewhere, and that is exactly what *you* are doing here. You are telling us that the 0.1% knows more than the 99.9% even though *you* do not fully understand the subject matter yourself! Unless and until *you* have thousands of classroom hours of physics education, or have studied the subject matter in some other way for at least that long, you have no business coming here and telling some very learned people that you know better, because you certainly do not! Of course, your fellow cranks just eat it up... right, Woz? I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6a26d59-ff17-4ec1-8370-d04ee06a9e54n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614801 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 23:20:50 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:47:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:39:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:56:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > > > > > Absolutely... for now... > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > > > > > > > > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > > > > > > > > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! > > > > > > > You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like... > > > I'm pretty sure that I am not the ignorant one in this thread. My evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of textbooks and peer-reviewed research papers all around the world and taught in the 23,000+ universities in the world. Your own evidence is where, exactly? > > > You'll have to get of your ass to look through the telescope. There is no point discussing with one who refuses to examine the criticisms of relativity. > Before you can criticize a theory it is essential that you fully understand that theory. I mean, *really* understand it. Sorry, Al. I bet your dog knows more logic than you. And The Shit of your idiot guru wasn't even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1beb2f27-8617-46f9-ac28-ba204791845bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614801 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:47:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:39:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:56:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:03:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 11:27:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:11:39 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:40:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:32:48?AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, astronomers KEEP USING Clemence values from 1943: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton: 532.33 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > GR: 42.98 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > Total: 575.31 arcsec/century > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above values are from an undisputed calculation that was made > > > > > > > > > > > almost 125 years ago by Newcomb and NOBODY, after Einstein 1919, > > > > > > > > > > > dared to refute. In particular, Clemence (1943, 1947, 1952). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GR IS AN HOAX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newtonian N-body calculations of the advance of Mercury's perihelion > > > > > > > > > > J. V. Narlikar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India > > > > > > > > > > N. C. Rana, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham > > > > > > > > > > 1984 November 15 > > > > > > > > > [snip more over-age stuff] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice that all of your references are completely dated? > > > > > > > > > Modern numerical integration, taking 'all' bodies in the solar system > > > > > > > > > into account, (including hundreds of asteroids) > > > > > > > > > result in agreement with general relativity > > > > > > > > > at the milliarcsecond/cy level. (yes, -milli-arcseconds, not arcseconds) > > > > > > > > > And not just for Mercury, also for Venus, Earth, and Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those computations are directly verified by tracking spacecraft, > > > > > > > > > to kilometer accuracy nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as navigation in the solar system is concerned, > > > > > > > > > general relativity is 'completed science'. > > > > > > > > > It has turned into engineering. (at JPL for example) > > > > > > > > > And yes, that accuracy is really needed > > > > > > > > > for making those 'gravity-assist' swings around planets. > > > > > > > > > The orbital windows for that are quite narrow, > > > > > > > > > especially so when several consecutive swings are needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: You are fighting windmills, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion of the pdf Hertz reffed above called "Mercury's Perihelion Advance" = "Conclusion > > > > > > > > Early analysis of Mercury’s motion was based on simplified models that ignored aspects such as the outer > > > > > > > > planets’ speeds, their combined contributions, and the motion of the Sun. This led to the conclusion that > > > > > > > > Newtonian gravity would predict Mercury to precess by 532 arcseconds per century, and that there exists > > > > > > > > a discrepancy of 43 arcs/cent that can be attributed to General Relativity. > > > > > > > > A proper analysis that considers all aspects of Solar System motion however shows the Newtonian > > > > > > > > prediction to be 528 arcs/cent, making the discrepancy 46 arcs/cent, and this is not in agreement with GR." > > > > > > > > That means GR has to curve space some more and jigger more free variables. > > > > > > > Here is what the International Skeptics Forum thinks about that author, Bernard Burchell... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305897 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This author also offers a superconducting model of the Sun... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://versounmondonuovo.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/bernard-burchell-a-superconducting-model-of-the-sun/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... which puts him securely into the crank category... don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose you believe in the Big Bang Balony also. > > > > > Absolutely... for now... > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=A%20wide%20range%20of%20empirical,the%20age%20of%20the%20universe. > > > > > > > > > > "A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe." > > > > > > > > > > Until and unless a better theory comes along, I'm glad to hang my hat on the current theory. None of current alternate theories has anywhere near the same amount of support and it not even close. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have *any* evidence that the BB theory is wrong? Of course not! > > > > > > > You are ignorant about it so much you probably think it explains Olber's Paradox. Before Olber the same question was raised and it was already understood most stars are too far away to light the night sky. Similarly for all the alleged evidence. You can sit with the status quo on a dumb theory if you like... > > > I'm pretty sure that I am not the ignorant one in this thread. My evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of textbooks and peer-reviewed research papers all around the world and taught in the 23,000+ universities in the world. Your own evidence is where, exactly? > > > You'll have to get of your ass to look through the telescope. There is no point discussing with one who refuses to examine the criticisms of relativity. > Before you can criticize a theory it is essential that you fully understand that theory. I mean, *really* understand it. If a heart surgeon explains to you in layman's terms what he is going to be doing to you in an upcoming surgery you certainly would not be telling him that you would prefer that he does it "your" way because you read about some new procedure somewhere, and that is exactly what *you* are doing here. You are telling us that the 0.1% knows more than the 99.9% even though *you* do not fully understand the subject matter yourself! Unless and until *you* have thousands of classroom hours of physics education, or have studied the subject matter in some other way for at least that long, you have no business coming here and telling some very learned people that you know better, because you certainly do not! Of course, your fellow cranks just eat it up... right, Woz? > > I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 14:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8et6n$26jmp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614844 |
On 7/9/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? > The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing. It is the "critics" (crackpots) who are not at all persuasive. Because they don't have any evidence of their claims!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a9f4988-2b53-4344-bfb9-5294b2aabb4en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614845 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:10:35 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/9/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > >> I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? > > > The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing. > It is the "critics" (crackpots) who are not at all persuasive. Because > they don't have any evidence of their claims! "I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” That makes me a scientist not you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47e129cf-0964-439c-87d7-5b334da2b267n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614850 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:16:35 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:10:35 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > On 7/9/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > >> I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? > > > > > The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing. > > It is the "critics" (crackpots) who are not at all persuasive. Because > > they don't have any evidence of their claims! > "I can also define science another way: Science is the belief > in the ignorance of experts.” That makes me a scientist not you. You think you are being clever, right Crossen? Think again... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4796290/#:~:text=Richard%20Feynman%20famously%20wrote%20%22Science,the%20Ignorance%20of%20the%20Experts%22. "Richard Feynman famously wrote "Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts". He meant, and explained that, "science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence". This is... truer than ever." There is also this, perhaps you will learn a thing or 2... https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ ... but I doubt it. You are too consumed with the fear that you might somehow be wrong, which you certainly are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 14:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh0ftaFofuaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614850 |
On 7/9/2023 1:16 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:10:35 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/9/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> >>>> I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? >>> The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing. >> It is the "critics" (crackpots) who are not at all persuasive. Because >> they don't have any evidence of their claims! > "I can also define science another way: Science is the belief > in the ignorance of experts.” That makes me a scientist not you. <BURP>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 18:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8fd63$28vjq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614850 |
On 7/9/2023 2:16 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:10:35 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/9/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:20:50 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> >>>> I must have missed the part where you provided evidence to support your claims... could you run that evidence by me again? >> >>> The relativists here are not at all persuasive. They would need to study the critics for one thing. >> It is the "critics" (crackpots) who are not at all persuasive. Because >> they don't have any evidence of their claims! > "I can also define science another way: Science is the belief > in the ignorance of experts.” That makes me a scientist not you. Quote mining. And you didn't address your lack of evidence. Feynman stated that science is not fixed in the past but always evolving as new evidence becomes available; anyone with new evidence and interpreting the evidence in a way following the scientific method can show the old experts were ignorant of many thing and thus wrong. This is unlike, say, religion, which is fixed and static. Did you notice one essential thing? Evidence! Cranks can think they can lean back in their armchair and imagine all kinds of stuff, perhaps after a hit from their bong, but with no evidence, it's all irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Without observations and evidence, you are no scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2c3706f-4368-4b09-a00b-0f8c06c237f7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614878 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: <snip> > Without observations and evidence, you are no scientist. And what was observed about length contraction and time dilation in 1905, asshole? What evidence had the "supreme scientist/clerk", besides his sharp tongue and imagination? Because that was the year when lunatic theoreticians started to displace polymath experimental physicists from leading physics and astronomy, the major goal of mathematicians like Hilbert, Poincaré, Minkowski, etc. And here is the world today, with truth buried under hundred of thousands of THEORETICAL CRAP, born in competitions between attention-seeking hoes. Find out how many definitions and applications for TIME exist in NASA, to define time in the Solar System. And this is a minor example of the struggle between cretins to win fame and privileges. Every single scientist wannabe want his name associated with whatever crap he invents. And this is science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web