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 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdinn5.1y6kixv10la1ohN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614657 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 02:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <701741a2-c802-4068-b809-180e6e282e5fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614754 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, 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) For innocent children - instead the general shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations apply good, old Euclidean math. And in the meantime, forbidden by his minions "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 10:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8brgf$1p0c2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614757 |
On 7/8/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> 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) > > > For innocent children - instead the general > shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations > apply good, old Euclidean math. No, janitor, if you paid attention to Jan's post, including the part you snipped, they need to use GR math due to the extreme accuracy required when doing flybys.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <caeda50c-0d92-407c-8363-ff20c2a72449n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614759 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 16:23:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/8/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > >> 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) > > > > > > For innocent children - instead the general > > shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations > > apply good, old Euclidean math. > No, janitor, if you paid attention to Jan's post, including the part you > snipped, they need to use GR math due to the extreme accuracy required > when doing flybys. No, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie. They're using Euclid all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 13:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8eq9f$26bvf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614767 |
On 7/8/2023 1:24 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 16:23:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> On 7/8/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>>> 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) >>> >>> >>> For innocent children - instead the general >>> shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations >>> apply good, old Euclidean math. >> No, janitor, if you paid attention to Jan's post, including the part you >> snipped, they need to use GR math due to the extreme accuracy required >> when doing flybys. > > No, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such > an impudent lie. They're using Euclid all the time. > Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6df6ac59-ab64-4b6f-b413-af2532a043adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614839 |
On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 19:20:50 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/8/2023 1:24 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 16:23:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/8/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >>>> 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) > >>> > >>> > >>> For innocent children - instead the general > >>> shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations > >>> apply good, old Euclidean math. > > >> No, janitor, if you paid attention to Jan's post, including the part you > >> snipped, they need to use GR math due to the extreme accuracy required > >> when doing flybys. > > > > No, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such > > an impudent lie. They're using Euclid all the time. > > > Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme > accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math. And Jan explicitly lied. Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math what is used. Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The Shit for real. They only pretend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 13:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8hf3e$2j6j6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614868 |
On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Sunday, 9 July 2023 at 19:20:50 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> On 7/8/2023 1:24 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 16:23:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/8/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 11:40:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For innocent children - instead the general >>>>> shit of the poor idiot Einstein those simulations >>>>> apply good, old Euclidean math. >> >>>> No, janitor, if you paid attention to Jan's post, including the part you >>>> snipped, they need to use GR math due to the extreme accuracy required >>>> when doing flybys. >>> >>> No, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such >>> an impudent lie. They're using Euclid all the time. >>> >> Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme >> accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math. > > And Jan explicitly lied. No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry. > Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and > it's Euclidean math what is used. Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about it, Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad for you. > Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The > Shit for real. They only pretend. Except it's NASA which is using GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your misunderstandings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05a84afd-1187-419c-8cf9-3ccb70b8a17fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614917 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
<snip>
> >> Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme
> >> accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math.
> >
> > And Jan explicitly lied.
> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry.
> > Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math what is used.
> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about it,
> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad for you.
> > Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The Shit for real. They only pretend.
> Except it's NASA which is using GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your misunderstandings.
Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or Neil DeGrasse ?
He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know).
NASA rejects General Relativity, even for using one GR book to hold a cup of coffee, to protect a table.
NASA JPL Solar System Dynamics use Keplerian/Newtonian theories, updated with actual data and extensions that are applied
to libraries that contain info about every planet and the Sun, thousands of comets and more than 1 million asteroids.
NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT GR OR HIS BASTARD CHILD, PPN.
Neither theory CAN EXPLAIN NOR CALCULATE just the motion of the Solar System Barycenter, affected by gravitational pulls of
major planets. Newton theories CAN EXPLAIN THAT, and data is available online FOR AN EUCLIDEAN 3D SPACE:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/
Ephemeris Type: Vector Table
Target Body: Sun
Coordinate Center: Solar System Barycenter (SSB)
Reference frame: ICRF
Reference plane: ecliptic x-y plane
Vector correction: geometric states
Calendar type:
Start time: yyyy-mm-dd
Stop time: yyyy-mm-dd
Step size: days/hours/minutes
Output units: Km and seconds
GENERATE EPHEMERIS AND DOWNLOAD RESULTS
"The gravity field of a body is a mathematical description and estimate of the complex gravity potential of that body. Depending on the accuracy with which the gravity was measured, there could be thousands of terms to the model, which is typically described in terms of spherical harmonic coefficients. Orbiter missions are typically necessary to "map" the gravity field of a body, and the SSD group is involved in developing many of the gravity fields of bodies beyond Earth".
Give it a try, fucking retarded. And address complaints to:
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
General site: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 18:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh3jhjF98k3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614944 |
On 7/10/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme >>>> accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math. >>> >>> And Jan explicitly lied. >> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry. > >>> Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math what is used. > >> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about it, >> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad for you. > >>> Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The Shit for real. They only pretend. >> Except it's NASA which is using GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your misunderstandings. > > Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or Neil DeGrasse ? > > He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know). <...> Self-entitled appears to me to be the hallmark of most Usenet newsgroups. Just how many kinds of "entitled" are there? Is there any formal recognition for being entitled?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c02c9e7c-3fbe-44d6-b412-e0d83ebada8an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614957 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 7/10/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >>>> Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme > >>>> accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math. > >>> > >>> And Jan explicitly lied. > >> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry. > > > >>> Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math what is used. > > > >> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about it, > >> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad for you. > > > >>> Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The Shit for real. They only pretend. > >> Except it's NASA which is using GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your misunderstandings. > > > > Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or Neil DeGrasse ? > > > > He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know). > <...> > > Self-entitled appears to me to be the hallmark of most > Usenet newsgroups. Just how many kinds of "entitled" > are there? Is there any formal recognition for being > entitled? I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which is not playing in his favor. You told some bits of information, and Roberts did provide a detailed list, as well others like Paul, JanPB, or Volney, etc. What is he afraid of? Of being a Bodkin' clone, who developed his career HERE, since 2014 + one book/week? I think he's an opinionated charlatan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 20:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh3qu9FaigoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614958 |
On 7/10/2023 7:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 7/10/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> Jan explicitly stated that general relativity was needed for the extreme >>>>>> accuracy needed for multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math. >>>>> >>>>> And Jan explicitly lied. >>>> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry. >>> >>>>> Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math what is used. >>> >>>> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about it, >>>> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad for you. >>> >>>>> Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The Shit for real. They only pretend. >>>> Except it's NASA which is using GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your misunderstandings. >>> >>> Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or Neil DeGrasse ? >>> >>> He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know). >> <...> >> >> Self-entitled appears to me to be the hallmark of most >> Usenet newsgroups. Just how many kinds of "entitled" >> are there? Is there any formal recognition for being >> entitled? > > I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which > is not playing in his favor. You told some bits of information, and Roberts did provide a detailed list, as well others like Paul, > JanPB, or Volney, etc. > > What is he afraid of? Of being a Bodkin' clone, who developed his career HERE, since 2014 + one book/week? > > I think he's an opinionated charlatan. There's always a reason. The questions I asked do have validity outside the thorough description above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f87bbfa-9e28-4193-915b-0a788a363e19n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614958 |
Continuing with the narrative of "The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance", which is the original topic of this thread, I cite my post here (2 days ago), with data from NASA JPL Solar System Dynamics and the online application HORIZONS. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/JWWwsBi98OI/m/Dtt7T8fZAwAJ One additional information about the HOAX of the 43"/cy is that NO MODEL since Newcomb (1897), Clemence (1943) and other APPROXIMATIONS about the gravitational pull of planets have included the ALMOST RANDOM OSCILLATIONS of the Sun around the variable barycenter, mostly due to the struggle between the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. Such information, available on: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/ and other specialized sites shows that the EFFECT of the Sun's barycenter CAN'T BE NEGLECTED AT ALL. Its influence in the precession of Mercury is too complicated to calculate WITHOUT powerful supercomputers, not available even 30 years ago. And I doubt that this topic has been of interest to anyone since the mid '90s, due to the complexity of the software that the calculations demand OR the time and money for individuals or researchers to focus on this problem, even when they may download the Ephemeris library for every object available at JPL, which amounts to several Gigabytes of compressed data in dozens of files. In a first order approximation, with few objects, ring model of planets (torus) and major corrections, the error is about ± 2"/cy, which places an approximation between 41"/cy and 47"/cy (it's like Eddington and his cooked calculations in 1919). IF the oscillation of the Sun's barycenter IS CONSIDERED, the position of the focus of ellipses VARY AS MUCH AS 276,465 Km JUST IN THE LAST 90 DAYS. When computed along 100 years, the barycenter varies with an incredible complex motion (no analytical expression) along A RADIUS > 1,000,000 Km with respect to the ICRF origin xyz of the Sun. And THIS VALUE, which is about 60 ppm of the average radius of Mercury's orbit DESTROY ANY ATTEMPT to resolve 0.1 ppm in the THEORETICAL CALCULATION of the 43"/cy. Anyone willing to SUSTAIN THIS HOAX, even with the hard, first class numerical evidence provided by NASA JPL Solar Dynamics division is AN IGNORANT PERSON, poisoned by a sick desire to sustain the einstenian narrative AT ANY COST. Of course, it will happen. Worst things are being sustained by the establishment, in view of current world affairs. But the truth is that GR IS AN HOAX, from the start and lasting 108 years so far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d655130c-3be6-4849-a07e-5773193916fdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614963 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:17:51 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > Continuing with the narrative of "The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance", which is the original > topic of this thread, I cite my post here (2 days ago), with data from NASA JPL Solar System Dynamics and the online > application HORIZONS. > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/JWWwsBi98OI/m/Dtt7T8fZAwAJ > > One additional information about the HOAX of the 43"/cy is that NO MODEL since Newcomb (1897), Clemence (1943) > and other APPROXIMATIONS about the gravitational pull of planets have included the ALMOST RANDOM OSCILLATIONS > of the Sun around the variable barycenter, mostly due to the struggle between the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. > > Such information, available on: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/ > > and other specialized sites shows that the EFFECT of the Sun's barycenter CAN'T BE NEGLECTED AT ALL. > > Its influence in the precession of Mercury is too complicated to calculate WITHOUT powerful supercomputers, not available > even 30 years ago. And I doubt that this topic has been of interest to anyone since the mid '90s, due to the complexity of > the software that the calculations demand OR the time and money for individuals or researchers to focus on this problem, > even when they may download the Ephemeris library for every object available at JPL, which amounts to several Gigabytes > of compressed data in dozens of files. > > In a first order approximation, with few objects, ring model of planets (torus) and major corrections, the error is about ± 2"/cy, > which places an approximation between 41"/cy and 47"/cy (it's like Eddington and his cooked calculations in 1919). > > IF the oscillation of the Sun's barycenter IS CONSIDERED, the position of the focus of ellipses VARY AS MUCH AS 276,465 Km > JUST IN THE LAST 90 DAYS. > > When computed along 100 years, the barycenter varies with an incredible complex motion (no analytical expression) along > A RADIUS > 1,000,000 Km with respect to the ICRF origin xyz of the Sun. And THIS VALUE, which is about 60 ppm of the > average radius of Mercury's orbit DESTROY ANY ATTEMPT to resolve 0.1 ppm in the THEORETICAL CALCULATION of the 43"/cy. > > Anyone willing to SUSTAIN THIS HOAX, even with the hard, first class numerical evidence provided by NASA JPL Solar Dynamics > division is AN IGNORANT PERSON, poisoned by a sick desire to sustain the einstenian narrative AT ANY COST. > > Of course, it will happen. Worst things are being sustained by the establishment, in view of current world affairs. > > But the truth is that GR IS AN HOAX, from the start and lasting 108 years so far. This is an excellent animation that present the problem and, as it says, UNIMAGINED JUST DECADES AGO! SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDX8kmvPnxU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fc4dbb1-b904-48e1-8c39-b4fe8c78235dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614964 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:26:53 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:17:51 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > Continuing with the narrative of "The HOAX of Einstein's Mercury's 43"/century perihelion advance", which is the original > > topic of this thread, I cite my post here (2 days ago), with data from NASA JPL Solar System Dynamics and the online > > application HORIZONS. > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/JWWwsBi98OI/m/Dtt7T8fZAwAJ > > > > One additional information about the HOAX of the 43"/cy is that NO MODEL since Newcomb (1897), Clemence (1943) > > and other APPROXIMATIONS about the gravitational pull of planets have included the ALMOST RANDOM OSCILLATIONS > > of the Sun around the variable barycenter, mostly due to the struggle between the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. > > > > Such information, available on: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/ > > > > and other specialized sites shows that the EFFECT of the Sun's barycenter CAN'T BE NEGLECTED AT ALL. > > > > Its influence in the precession of Mercury is too complicated to calculate WITHOUT powerful supercomputers, not available > > even 30 years ago. And I doubt that this topic has been of interest to anyone since the mid '90s, due to the complexity of > > the software that the calculations demand OR the time and money for individuals or researchers to focus on this problem, > > even when they may download the Ephemeris library for every object available at JPL, which amounts to several Gigabytes > > of compressed data in dozens of files. > > > > In a first order approximation, with few objects, ring model of planets (torus) and major corrections, the error is about ± 2"/cy, > > which places an approximation between 41"/cy and 47"/cy (it's like Eddington and his cooked calculations in 1919). > > > > IF the oscillation of the Sun's barycenter IS CONSIDERED, the position of the focus of ellipses VARY AS MUCH AS 276,465 Km > > JUST IN THE LAST 90 DAYS. > > > > When computed along 100 years, the barycenter varies with an incredible complex motion (no analytical expression) along > > A RADIUS > 1,000,000 Km with respect to the ICRF origin xyz of the Sun. And THIS VALUE, which is about 60 ppm of the > > average radius of Mercury's orbit DESTROY ANY ATTEMPT to resolve 0.1 ppm in the THEORETICAL CALCULATION of the 43"/cy. > > > > Anyone willing to SUSTAIN THIS HOAX, even with the hard, first class numerical evidence provided by NASA JPL Solar Dynamics > > division is AN IGNORANT PERSON, poisoned by a sick desire to sustain the einstenian narrative AT ANY COST. > > > > Of course, it will happen. Worst things are being sustained by the establishment, in view of current world affairs. > > > > But the truth is that GR IS AN HOAX, from the start and lasting 108 years so far. > This is an excellent animation that present the problem and, as it says, UNIMAGINED JUST DECADES AGO! > > SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDX8kmvPnxU https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/323183/are-planets-actually-moving-in-elliptical-orbits-around-the-sun-or-do-they-move "This evidence I have made about 15 pages of formulas and diagrams. With him IS REFUTED Einstein's "proof" precession of the perihelion of the planet, and also to see why our moon has always one and the same with his side to the Earth, and something,"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 11:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kh4ne5Feu7nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614958 |
On 2023-07-11 00:43:40 +0000, Richard Hertz said: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 7/10/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 >> at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:> >> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej >> Wozniak wrote:> >> > <snip>> >> >>>> Jan explicitly stated that general >> relativity was needed for the extreme> >>>> accuracy needed for >> multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math.> >>>> >>> And Jan explicitly >> lied.> >> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary >> for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry.> >> >>> >> Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math >> what is used.> >> >> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean >> geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about >> it,> >> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad >> for you.> >> >>> Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The >> Shit for real. They only pretend.> >> Except it's NASA which is using >> GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your >> misunderstandings.> >> > Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or >> Neil DeGrasse ?> >> > He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an >> ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know). >> <...>>> Self-entitled appears to me to be the hallmark of most> Usenet >> newsgroups. Just how many kinds of "entitled"> are there? Is there any >> formal recognition for being> entitled? > > I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what > fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which > is not playing in his favor. You don't need Jan Lodder's personal assessment of his credentials (unlike, for example, those of "Dr." Richard Hachel, a closely guarded secret). It's easy enough to find out from Web of Science that he has published work in several reputable physics journals, such as the American Journal of Physics. By contrast, if you search for "Hachel R" you'll get "Your search found no results". If you try "Lengrand R" you'll get just one meeting abstract with seven authors, of one page, in Diabetes & Metabolism, on the subject of MICROALBUMINURIA IN NOCTURNAL AND 24-HOUR URINE SAMPLES OF 296 HOSPITALIZED DIABETICS. > You told some bits of information, and Roberts did provide a detailed > list, as well others like Paul, > JanPB, or Volney, etc. > > What is he afraid of? Of being a Bodkin' clone, who developed his > career HERE, since 2014 + one book/week? > > I think he's an opinionated charlatan. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 03:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0376cdb-e53d-4422-b7cc-e8fa9421b02bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614979 |
On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 11:58:33 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-11 00:43:40 +0000, Richard Hertz said: > > > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > >> On 7/10/2023 3:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 > >> at 2:28:17 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:> >> On 7/9/2023 4:19 PM, Maciej > >> Wozniak wrote:> >> > <snip>> >> >>>> Jan explicitly stated that general > >> relativity was needed for the extreme> >>>> accuracy needed for > >> multiple flybys. GR is not Euclidean math.> >>>> >>> And Jan explicitly > >> lied.> >> No, janitor, Jan told the truth. Jan said GR was necessary > >> for precise multiple flybys and GR is non-Euclidean geometry.> >> >>> > >> Of course your GR is not not Euclidean math, and it's Euclidean math > >> what is used.> >> >> Except, as Jan stated, GR is used, so Euclidean > >> geometry isn't being used. No matter how much you rave and spit about > >> it,> >> Euclidean geometry isn't being used when GR is used. Too bad > >> for you.> >> >>> Even idiots like JJ are not stupid enough to apply The > >> Shit for real. They only pretend.> >> Except it's NASA which is using > >> GR for its flybys, not JJ. JJ is just trying to correct your > >> misunderstandings.> >> > Who the fuck Jan is? Sagan, Michio Kaku or > >> Neil DeGrasse ?> >> > He's a self-entitled NOBODY, and you're an > >> ass-kisser, as it comes to your personality and tastes (you know). > > >> <...>>> Self-entitled appears to me to be the hallmark of most> Usenet > >> newsgroups. Just how many kinds of "entitled"> are there? Is there any > >> formal recognition for being> entitled? > > > > I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what > > fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which > > is not playing in his favor. > You don't need Jan Lodder's personal assessment of his credentials > (unlike, for example, those of "Dr." Richard Hachel, a closely guarded > secret). It's easy enough to find out from Web of Science that he has > published work in several reputable physics journals, such as the > American Journal of Physics. "Physics" and "reputable journals" are excluding each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dadc44f4-0467-4078-a704-893925be42b5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614979 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:58:33 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-11 00:43:40 +0000, Richard Hertz said: <snip> > > I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which > > is not playing in his favor. > You don't need Jan Lodder's personal assessment of his credentials (unlike, for example, those of "Dr." Richard Hachel, a closely guarded > secret). It's easy enough to find out from Web of Science that he has published work in several reputable physics journals, such as the > American Journal of Physics. <snip> Thanks for the tips, Athel. It's what I suspected. JJ Lodder is an opinionated charlatan, whose career peaked almost 50 years ago (now being about 74 y.o.), when published ONE COMMENT on BBC and was the sidekick of the main author of TWO papers in the American Journal of Physics between 1976 and 1984: Generation‐recombination noise and the microwave emission from InSb R. G. van Welzenis, J. J. Lodder Journal of Applied Physics 44, 2696–2707 (1973) Constraints N. G. van Kampen, J. J. Lodder American Journal of Physics 52, 419–424 (1984) Comment on ’’Blackbody spectrum and the interpretation of quantum theory’’ J. J. Lodder American Journal of Physics 46, 427 (1978) So, his background is based on plasma physics, microwave radiation and statistical mechanics from 40 to 50 years ago, while working at the FOM-Instituut voor Plasmafysica, The Netherlands. THEN: - ZERO BACKGROUND on relativity theories. - ZERO BACKGROUND on Solar System Dynamics, Big Bang Theories, Cosmology or Astrophysics. A retired desktop physicist, highly biased by the einstenian religion. Also, a crank, in his youth. Read "Constraints".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6223b5bd-680f-412e-b998-8e65e09b8fb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614990 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:40:20 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:58:33 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-11 00:43:40 +0000, Richard Hertz said: > <snip> > > > I asked Jan, politely, to tell which are his credentials and in what fields did he developed his career. He didn't answer, which > > > is not playing in his favor. > > > You don't need Jan Lodder's personal assessment of his credentials (unlike, for example, those of "Dr." Richard Hachel, a closely guarded > > secret). It's easy enough to find out from Web of Science that he has published work in several reputable physics journals, such as the > > American Journal of Physics. > <snip> > > Thanks for the tips, Athel. It's what I suspected. > > JJ Lodder is an opinionated charlatan, whose career peaked almost 50 years ago (now being about 74 y.o.), when > published ONE COMMENT on BBC and was the sidekick of the main author of TWO papers in the American Journal of Physics > between 1976 and 1984: > > Generation‐recombination noise and the microwave emission from InSb > R. G. van Welzenis, J. J. Lodder > Journal of Applied Physics 44, 2696–2707 (1973) > > Constraints > N. G. van Kampen, J. J. Lodder > American Journal of Physics 52, 419–424 (1984) > > Comment on ’’Blackbody spectrum and the interpretation of quantum theory’’ > J. J. Lodder > American Journal of Physics 46, 427 (1978) > > So, his background is based on plasma physics, microwave radiation and statistical mechanics from 40 to 50 years ago, > while working at the FOM-Instituut voor Plasmafysica, The Netherlands. > > > THEN: > > - ZERO BACKGROUND on relativity theories. > - ZERO BACKGROUND on Solar System Dynamics, Big Bang Theories, Cosmology or Astrophysics. > > > A retired desktop physicist, highly biased by the einstenian religion. > > Also, a crank, in his youth. Read "Constraints". Here's another corrective for getting a more accurate measure (although the author is a relativist): "Not relying on the Newton gravitational constant gives more accurate gravitational predictions" by Espen Gaarder Haug. The constant was added in early in the 19th century to fine tune it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh8qf4F5o7uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615099 |
On 7/12/2023 5:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: <...> > Here's another corrective for getting a more accurate measure (although the author is a relativist): "Not relying on the Newton gravitational constant gives more accurate > gravitational predictions" by Espen Gaarder Haug. The constant was added in early in the 19th century to fine tune it. You really should stick to your strong suit, the history of science. You're not much good in discussing its future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d5d10a4-aac7-4211-a3fc-3af8266fa1b7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615102 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 4:14:48 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/12/2023 5:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > <...> > > Here's another corrective for getting a more accurate measure (although the author is a relativist): "Not relying on the Newton gravitational constant gives more accurate > > gravitational predictions" by Espen Gaarder Haug. The constant was added in early in the 19th century to fine tune it. > You really should stick to your strong suit, the history of > science. You're not much good in discussing its future. I suppose the one thing a consultant would understand is the value of unsolicited advice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web