Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616141 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 392 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 23:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 00:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-28 07:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 08:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-27 22:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-27 16:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 02:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:23 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 04:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 05:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 21:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:36 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 02:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-31 15:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 05:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 09:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 10:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 04:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 10:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 12:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 05:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 03:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 03:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 12:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-04 12:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-04 16:28 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 23:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-08 13:44 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 20:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 22:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 00:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-10 02:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-29 20:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 18:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 09:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 00:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 12:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 20:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:48 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 07:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 23:37 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 03:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 22:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 15:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 11:51 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-02 12:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 04:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 17:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:44 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:56 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-04 21:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 21:12 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 15:05 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 23:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 23:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 16:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-08-03 21:16 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 22:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Hazeev <llee@hmelvave.ah> - 2023-07-31 20:23 +0000
From Russia With (was Re: Dunning-Kruger examples) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 18:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 14:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 02:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 01:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 09:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-06 05:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 07:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-06 21:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 10:29 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 12:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 20:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-12 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 17:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 02:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-12 17:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 21:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 11:23 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 09:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 05:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 08:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 09:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 11:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 19:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 02:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 22:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 05:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 17:13 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 01:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 17:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 01:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 04:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 12:31 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:35 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 09:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 16:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 07:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 16:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 08:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:40 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:55 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 20:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:38 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:02 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:30 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 15:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 15:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 14:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-26 12:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 09:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 22:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 22:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Edgardo Yudelevich <edal@ouoygerr.cu> - 2023-08-26 21:41 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 20:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:32 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:04 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:41 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 11:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:06 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 01:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:22 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:47 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Brouce Vil <ibiu@bculrlcu.oc> - 2023-08-23 21:55 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 17:33 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Pazi <pphe@lmhecacz.ha> - 2023-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Osvani Dobronos <dsio@iaboroor.ov> - 2023-08-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 07:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 01:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 21:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 05:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 16:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 17:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-07 13:50 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 03:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-31 09:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 17:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-04 16:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 01:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Hershel Awtomovitch <ecwt@timhaheo.et> - 2023-07-28 12:38 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 05:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-29 11:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:08 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Stefhen Hanok <ttsk@asskohan.fn> - 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-29 21:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qen0we.19ot6hb23a3ttN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #616258 |
Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote: > On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Lou wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Lou wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > Lou > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 18:27:30 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden: > > > > > > [-] > > > > > > > > Some of these are so far out that one might think they were > > > > > > > > intended as humour. However, I've never detected any signs of a > > > > > > > > sense of humour in the uttterances of patdolan, "Dr." Hachel, > > > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak or Ken Seto, for example, so I feel confident > > > > > > > > that they were intended seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You forgot to add yourself to this list. > > > > > > [irrelevancies about De Sitter] > > > > > > > > > > > > You are off-topic for this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would seem that you cannot do that, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > Can't do the maths either? Thought not. > > > > > And so Athels crank list is on topic? > > > > Of course it is on-topic. > > > > A) It is amusing, to some of us. > > > > Perhaps even to some of the kooks, when about other kooks. > > > > B) It is a kind of user manual for this group. > > > > A kind of Who is Who, to help innocent kiddies who might stray in here. > > > > > Or is it just an example of the crackpot calling the kettle black? > > > > Of course not. A C-B is just an astute observer of the goings-on here. > > > > He produced an up to date compilation of the best parts. > > > > Such a compilation is far more useful than just calling people cranks. > > > > > > > > Jan > > [more droning on about De Sitter, > > while ignoring what this thread is about] > Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? > > Is there really nothing else you can talk about? > > > > If so, Bye, > > > > Jan > > Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. OK, that was one time too many. You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed you should start a thread of your own on it. [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] > Probably not. Looks like you've just joined Athel on his list. That's for Athel to decide of course, but somehow I doubt that very much. And you are obviously wrong about Athel. Athel is on the list of all lists that don't contain Athel, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kimi7uFi2lfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616280 |
On 2023-07-29 19:55:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Lou wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Lou wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 18:27:30 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>>>> [-] >>>>>>>>> Some of these are so far out that one might think they were >>>>>>>>> intended as humour. However, I've never detected any signs of a >>>>>>>>> sense of humour in the uttterances of patdolan, "Dr." Hachel, >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak or Ken Seto, for example, so I feel confident >>>>>>>>> that they were intended seriously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You forgot to add yourself to this list. >>>>>>> [irrelevancies about De Sitter] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are off-topic for this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would seem that you cannot do that, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't do the maths either? Thought not. >>>>>> And so Athels crank list is on topic? >>>>> Of course it is on-topic. >>>>> A) It is amusing, to some of us. >>>>> Perhaps even to some of the kooks, when about other kooks. >>>>> B) It is a kind of user manual for this group. >>>>> A kind of Who is Who, to help innocent kiddies who might stray in here. >>>>>> Or is it just an example of the crackpot calling the kettle black? >>>>> Of course not. A C-B is just an astute observer of the goings-on here. >>>>> He produced an up to date compilation of the best parts. >>>>> Such a compilation is far more useful than just calling people cranks. >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>> [more droning on about De Sitter, >>> while ignoring what this thread is about] >> Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? >>> Is there really nothing else you can talk about? >>> >>> If so, Bye, >>> >>> Jan >> >> Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. > > OK, that was one time too many. > You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. > If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed > you should start a thread of your own on it. > [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] > >> Probably not. Looks like you've just joined Athel on his list. > > That's for Athel to decide of course, > but somehow I doubt that very much. > And you are obviously wrong about Athel. > Athel is on the list of all lists that don't contain Athel,` I suspect that Lou is hurt that I overlooked his (or is it her) crackpottery in my set of examples. Don't worry: it won't happen again. > > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-30 02:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49e1212f-11fe-4abe-9604-85020c2ddf00n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616312 |
On Sunday, 30 July 2023 at 09:36:35 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-29 19:55:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Lou wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> Lou wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> Lou > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 18:27:30 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden: > >>>>>>> [-] > >>>>>>>>> Some of these are so far out that one might think they were > >>>>>>>>> intended as humour. However, I've never detected any signs of a > >>>>>>>>> sense of humour in the uttterances of patdolan, "Dr." Hachel, > >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak or Ken Seto, for example, so I feel confident > >>>>>>>>> that they were intended seriously. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You forgot to add yourself to this list. > >>>>>>> [irrelevancies about De Sitter] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are off-topic for this thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It would seem that you cannot do that, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can't do the maths either? Thought not. > >>>>>> And so Athels crank list is on topic? > >>>>> Of course it is on-topic. > >>>>> A) It is amusing, to some of us. > >>>>> Perhaps even to some of the kooks, when about other kooks. > >>>>> B) It is a kind of user manual for this group. > >>>>> A kind of Who is Who, to help innocent kiddies who might stray in here. > >>>>>> Or is it just an example of the crackpot calling the kettle black? > >>>>> Of course not. A C-B is just an astute observer of the goings-on here. > >>>>> He produced an up to date compilation of the best parts. > >>>>> Such a compilation is far more useful than just calling people cranks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jan > >>> [more droning on about De Sitter, > >>> while ignoring what this thread is about] > >> Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? > >>> Is there really nothing else you can talk about? > >>> > >>> If so, Bye, > >>> > >>> Jan > >> > >> Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. > > > > OK, that was one time too many. > > You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. > > If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed > > you should start a thread of your own on it. > > [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] > > > >> Probably not. Looks like you've just joined Athel on his list. > > > > That's for Athel to decide of course, > > but somehow I doubt that very much. > > And you are obviously wrong about Athel. > > Athel is on the list of all lists that don't contain Athel,` > > I suspect that Lou is hurt that I overlooked his (or is it her) > crackpottery in my set of examples. Don't worry: it won't happen again. Stop fucking, poor halfbrain. You've never presented anything except barking here. You're a crrackpot yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 09:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ua8cb5$39jsn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616280 |
On 7/29/2023 3:55 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Lou wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Lou wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>> You forgot to add yourself to this list. >>>>>>> [irrelevancies about De Sitter] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are off-topic for this thread. >>>>>> Can't do the maths either? Thought not. >>>>>> And so Athels crank list is on topic? >>>>> Of course it is on-topic. >>> [more droning on about De Sitter, >>> while ignoring what this thread is about] >> Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? >> Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. > > OK, that was one time too many. > You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. > If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed > you should start a thread of your own on it. > [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] A kind of high functioning autism has symptoms of not following a conversation well, not knowing when a discussion has ended or changed topics or if their contribution is unwanted or off-topic, etc. So perhaps Lou is autistic rather than (or in addition to) being a Dunning-Kruger example because of this out-of-place De Sitter reference? Of course it may seem incorrect to use the term "high functioning" to describe relativity crackpots :-) Of course, how De Sitter's argument disproves a c+v speed of light is certainly on-topic here in its own separate thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13b3ab6c-3a94-4500-995d-a091a167d908n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616394 |
On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 15:18:34 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/29/2023 3:55 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Lou wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> Lou wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> Lou > >>>>>>>> You forgot to add yourself to this list. > > >>>>>>> [irrelevancies about De Sitter] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are off-topic for this thread. > >>>>>> Can't do the maths either? Thought not. > >>>>>> And so Athels crank list is on topic? > > >>>>> Of course it is on-topic. > >>> [more droning on about De Sitter, > >>> while ignoring what this thread is about] > > >> Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? > >> Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. > > > > OK, that was one time too many. > > You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. > > If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed > > you should start a thread of your own on it. > > [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] > A kind of high functioning autism has symptoms of not following a And do you still believe that adjusting the clocks to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is putting them into some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the average of your moronic church.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 15:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qeqotb.1gzswhb1s1egr5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #616394 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 7/29/2023 3:55 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 11:39:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Lou wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 09:37:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> Lou wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 12:33:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> Lou > > >>>>>>>> You forgot to add yourself to this list. > > >>>>>>> [irrelevancies about De Sitter] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are off-topic for this thread. > > >>>>>> Can't do the maths either? Thought not. > >>>>>> And so Athels crank list is on topic? > > >>>>> Of course it is on-topic. > > >>> [more droning on about De Sitter, > >>> while ignoring what this thread is about] > > >> Ignoring? ? Isn't the thread about all you crackpots who ignore the facts? > > >> Maths please JJ. Not hand waving. > > > > OK, that was one time too many. > > You really should stop trying to hijack other people's threads. > > If you want to have your De Sitter mania discussed > > you should start a thread of your own on it. > > [snip more De Sitter hang-ups] > > A kind of high functioning autism has symptoms of not following a > conversation well, not knowing when a discussion has ended or changed > topics or if their contribution is unwanted or off-topic, etc. So > perhaps Lou is autistic rather than (or in addition to) being a > Dunning-Kruger example because of this out-of-place De Sitter reference? > Of course it may seem incorrect to use the term "high functioning" to > describe relativity crackpots :-) Dunning-Kruger didn't come in. What happened: Athel posted the Dunning-Kruger list. 'Lou' is not on it, or even mentioned. Lou replies that Athel himself is a crackpot because of his De Sitter crap. Athel replies (correctly) that he has not been involved in those De Sitter discussions. Lou admits that, but nevertheless goes on and on with repeats of his De Sittter mania. (while shouting 'crackpot') > Of course, how De Sitter's argument disproves a c+v speed of light is > certainly on-topic here in its own separate thread. Certainly, and it has been discussed several times already. There can be no excuse for latching it on to other threads with it, again and again. That is -bad- behaviour, comparable with those Russian trolls who latch on to every thread here with their Rus propaganda, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20ed1e9f-857c-48b4-ae0c-5cecd2e42313n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616252 |
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > the source (as per emission theory)... Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. Consider this: Suppose you are holding two identical flashlights, and you emit a single pulse of light from one of the flashlights. As that pulse is zooming away, you can shake one of the flashlights, or the other. If you shake the flashlight that emitted the pulse, your belief is that it directy alters the speed and direction of the now distant pulse... but if you shake the other identical flashlight it has no effect at all on the distant pulse. Surely you agree that that is an exceedingly silly belief.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b880837-4182-4ce0-b25c-cbef347f44e1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616447 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz at this link: https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. This is the ether theory he did disposing of. Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian Theory of Relativity’ posits. Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. And from an English translation of his original paper at http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf In a quote on page 148/320 Ritz says: “It, the ether hypotheses, must be abandoned” And on pg 207/368 he says something like: “ the only conclusion is that the ether does not exist or at least we should renounce the use of this representation.....” And I can understand why he has his “postulate” of light always at c in the source frame regardless of the motion of the source relative to anything else. It means his theories predictions become consistent with the latest experiments of the day. Including MMX. > Consider this: Suppose you are holding two identical flashlights, and you emit a single pulse of light from one of the flashlights. As that pulse is zooming away, you can shake one of the flashlights, or the other. If you shake the flashlight that emitted the pulse, your belief is that it directy alters the speed and direction of the now distant pulse... but if you shake the other identical flashlight it has no effect at all on the distant pulse. Surely you agree that that is an exceedingly silly belief. Not silly at all. Look at MMX. Light appears to travel at a constant speed in straight lines in the experiment. Yet the experiment itself rotates around the earths axis, rotates around the sun and travels at great speeds in a corkscrew motion through the galaxy disc. Only possible in emission theory if one assumes that light always travels at c in straight lines in the source frame as Ritz posits. Or how about deSitters crackpot conclusion? He pretends that light travelling away from the source can be shaken back and forth in the source frame by an earth observer who is many light years away and is moving back and forth relative to the source. Now THATS silly!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15259a46-7825-41bb-8184-9b1b2e3b5648n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616493 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > at this link: > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. That's given "uniform" motion of translation. A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33cdde1a-802f-4e04-bff1-9e9fd747c765n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616495 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > at this link: > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in what you point out is rotational translation Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. Ritz knew this, and It’s worth pointing out that he died before deSitter thought he could make traction out of pretending that Ritz’s theory could not explain rotational motion. > The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing I don’t click on unknown links. Can you describe it in words?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88b20499-476a-48a4-af68-6bff66c9d5c0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616496 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:58:10 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > > at this link: > > > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > > > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in > what you point out is rotational translation > Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. > Ritz knew this, WRONG. Ritz was not insane. You accuse him of insanity. > and It’s worth pointing out that he died before deSitter > thought he could make traction out of pretending that Ritz’s theory > could not explain rotational motion. > > The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing > I don’t click on unknown links. Can you describe it in words? Despite orbiting around another massive object, a star emits concentric waves that are always centered about its *current* position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fc41eb5-1df8-4d11-97a7-a01901370e51n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616497 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 15:04:53 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:58:10 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > > > at this link: > > > > > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > > > > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > > > > > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in > > what you point out is rotational translation > > Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. > > Ritz knew this, > WRONG. Ritz was not insane. Any experimental evidence, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31ad6297-e556-427f-af51-d67a25c197bbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616497 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 14:04:53 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:58:10 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > > > at this link: > > > > > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > > > > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > > > > > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in > > what you point out is rotational translation > > Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. > > Ritz knew this, > WRONG. Ritz was not insane. > You accuse him of insanity. That’s your fantasy. I was trying to show you how Ritz was trying to explain how light appeared to travel at a constant speed in MMX when the experiment itself moved through the galaxy and rotated around the Sun and the earths axis. As far as I’m aware he did not specify that his theory was incompatible with earths rotation of MMX. > > and It’s worth pointing out that he died before deSitter > > thought he could make traction out of pretending that Ritz’s theory > > could not explain rotational motion. > > > The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing > > I don’t click on unknown links. Can you describe it in words? > Despite orbiting around another massive object, a star emits > concentric waves that are always centered about its *current* > position. Think about what you just said. It’s “current” position is a position that was arrived at by the star having rotated since it emitted the previous light waves. In other words you have just agreed with me that starlight emitted previously travels in concentric circles outwards from whatever position the star is currently located. Not from where the star used to be when the star emitted that wave. And incidentally you never explained how Ritzs theory claims that the earth observer was able to “drag” the stars light in circles in the star frame so that it appeared to go in straight lines in the observer frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d6f331f-4a93-4813-b383-99aa29728e34n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616503 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 14:04:53 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:58:10 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > > > > at this link: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > > > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > > > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > > > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > > > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > > > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > > > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > > > > > > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > > > > > > > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in > > > what you point out is rotational translation > > > Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. > > > Ritz knew this, > > WRONG. Ritz was not insane. > > You accuse him of insanity. > That’s your fantasy. I was trying to show you how Ritz was trying > to explain how light appeared to travel at a constant speed in MMX > when the experiment itself moved through the galaxy and rotated > around the Sun and the earths axis. As far as I’m aware he did > not specify that his theory was incompatible with earths rotation > of MMX. > > > and It’s worth pointing out that he died before deSitter > > > thought he could make traction out of pretending that Ritz’s theory > > > could not explain rotational motion. > > > > The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing > > > I don’t click on unknown links. Can you describe it in words? > > Despite orbiting around another massive object, a star emits > > concentric waves that are always centered about its *current* > > position. > Think about what you just said. It’s “current” position > is a position that was arrived at by the star having rotated > since it emitted the previous light waves. In other words you have > just agreed with me that starlight emitted previously > travels in concentric circles outwards from whatever position > the star is currently located. Not from where the star used to be > when the star emitted that wave. No. I am not agreeing with you. You appear to lack basic English skills. In my animation, I illustrate the absolutely INSANE notion that "starlight emitted previously travels in concentric circles outwards from whatever position the star is currently located ." > And incidentally you never explained how Ritzs theory claims that > the earth observer was able to “drag” the stars light in circles in the star frame > so that it appeared to go in straight lines in the observer frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10bca304-6953-4bef-9266-e63451b65456n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616506 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 15:02:08 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 14:04:53 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:58:10 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:22:20 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:09:30 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 00:13:18 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > > How does a light beam travelling at a constant c relative to > > > > > > > > the source (as per emission theory)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. Here’s a quote supposedly from Ritz > > > > > > at this link: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath739/kmath739.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “ In the theory of ether, a material point P, at rest in relation to its surroundings, will be able to emit waves of a constant radial speed and which will make at each instant a system of spheres having P as a center. If P is animated by a motion of translation, the spheres, on the contrary, will become eccentric, each keeping its center at P1 of ether which coincides with P at the instant of emission. According to the principle of relativity*, on the contrary, if the motion of translation is uniform, the spheres will have to stay concentric, as at rest, and the center will always be P.” > > > > > > Notice he first says what ether theory posits. And what you described above. > > > > > > This is the ether theory he did disposing of. > > > > > > Then, in the second half of the quote he mentions what his own *’Ritzian > > > > > > Theory of Relativity’ posits. > > > > > > Notice he specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > > > > That's given "uniform" motion of translation. > > > > > > > > > > A star in orbit is *not* undergoing uniform motion of translation. > > > > > > > > > Neither is MMX. It rotates around the earths axis, and the sun in > > > > what you point out is rotational translation > > > > Yet it gives the same results as if it were uniform motion of translation. > > > > Ritz knew this, > > > WRONG. Ritz was not insane. > > > You accuse him of insanity. > > That’s your fantasy. I was trying to show you how Ritz was trying > > to explain how light appeared to travel at a constant speed in MMX > > when the experiment itself moved through the galaxy and rotated > > around the Sun and the earths axis. As far as I’m aware he did > > not specify that his theory was incompatible with earths rotation > > of MMX. > > > > and It’s worth pointing out that he died before deSitter > > > > thought he could make traction out of pretending that Ritz’s theory > > > > could not explain rotational motion. > > > > > The scenario that I illustrated here is totally absurd. > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RoYFuXeFTslkbX9rsw0PCn2rwWPyfAum/view?usp=sharing > > > > I don’t click on unknown links. Can you describe it in words? > > > Despite orbiting around another massive object, a star emits > > > concentric waves that are always centered about its *current* > > > position. > > Think about what you just said. It’s “current” position > > is a position that was arrived at by the star having rotated > > since it emitted the previous light waves. In other words you have > > just agreed with me that starlight emitted previously > > travels in concentric circles outwards from whatever position > > the star is currently located. Not from where the star used to be > > when the star emitted that wave. > No. I am not agreeing with you. You appear to lack basic English > skills. In my animation, I illustrate the absolutely INSANE notion that > "starlight emitted previously travels in concentric circles outwards > from whatever position the star is currently located ." > > And incidentally you never explained how Ritzs theory claims that > > the earth observer was able to “drag” the stars light in circles in the star frame > > so that it appeared to go in straight lines in the observer frame. You are correct in pointing out that the quote from Ritz only specifies translational. Not rotational motion. But he was dead by 1913 when DeSitter raised his rotational criticism against Ritz and Im sure it would have been no problem for Ritz to include any rotational motion as part of his version of relativity. Considering that a null result then and in modern versions of MMX is still recorded despite MMX rotating around the sun and the earths axis. Especially considering that earths 24 hour rotation period is much faster than that of most double stars systems Are you trying to suggest that an MMX experiment done on the surface of an object rotating once every few years would *not* show a negative result, when the same experiment rotating once every 24 hours on earth does give a negative result?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 12:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46c325c5-55e7-4e2b-b646-6684ecd945adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616515 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:44:20 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > You are correct in pointing out that the quote from Ritz only specifies > translational. Not rotational motion. > But he was dead by 1913 when DeSitter raised his rotational criticism > against Ritz and Im sure it would have been no problem for Ritz to include > any rotational motion as part of his version of relativity. Since Ritz was not insane, Ritz would never have suggested that the motion of a light pulse might vary depending on the current motion of a distant source (whatever "current" may mean) even if the source is separated by light years from the pulse. On the other hand, *YOU* make such an assertion. Therefore... > Considering that a > null result then and in modern versions of MMX is still recorded despite > MMX rotating around the sun and the earths axis. Especially considering > that earths 24 hour rotation period is much faster than that of most > double stars systems In the nanoseconds it took for light to traverse multiple times through Michelson's apparatus, the Earth rotated hardly at all. > Are you trying to suggest that an MMX experiment done on the surface > of an object rotating once every few years would *not* show a negative > result, First of all, learn the distinction between "rotate" and "revolve". Stars in binary systems orbit at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Two stars separated by 1 AU might orbit at a few ten-thousandths of the speed of light, for example. Over the course of years, this difference accumulates to enormous amounts. > when the same experiment rotating once every 24 hours on earth > does give a negative result? Again, the situations are not comparable, neither in terms of relative time, nor in terms of the physical layout of the experiment. Experiments specifically designed from scratch to detect possible c+kv effects have always reported k to be less than the resolution of the apparatus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c726491a-10a0-4eb4-9082-2d2ba89a8173n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616534 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 20:41:03 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:44:20 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > You are correct in pointing out that the quote from Ritz only specifies > > translational. Not rotational motion. > > But he was dead by 1913 when DeSitter raised his rotational criticism > > against Ritz and Im sure it would have been no problem for Ritz to include > > any rotational motion as part of his version of relativity. > Since Ritz was not insane, Ritz would never have suggested > that the motion of a light pulse might vary depending on the > current motion of a distant source (whatever "current" may mean) > even if the source is separated by light years from the pulse. > Nor did he say that an observer on earth could make light travel at different speeds in any source frame. He wasn’t that deluded. > On the other hand, *YOU* make such an assertion. Therefore... I make an assertion! ? No. MMX showed no external effect on the isotropic propagation of light in the lab. I didn’t conduct the experiment. > > Considering that a > > null result then and in modern versions of MMX is still recorded despite > > MMX rotating around the sun and the earths axis. Especially considering > > that earths 24 hour rotation period is much faster than that of most > > double stars systems > In the nanoseconds it took for light to traverse multiple times > through Michelson's apparatus, the Earth rotated hardly at all. So...what are you suggesting? That even thought the latest experiments can’t detect anything other then a negative result that they must be wrong? > > Are you trying to suggest that an MMX experiment done on the surface > > of an object rotating once every few years would *not* show a negative > > result, > First of all, learn the distinction between "rotate" and "revolve". > Stars in binary systems orbit at a significant fraction of the > speed of light. Two stars separated by 1 AU might orbit at a > few ten-thousandths of the speed of light, for example. Over > the course of years, this difference accumulates to enormous > amounts. Irrelevent. > > when the same experiment rotating once every 24 hours on earth > > does give a negative result? > Again, the situations are not comparable, neither in terms of > relative time, nor in terms of the physical layout of the experiment. > Experiments specifically designed from scratch to detect possible > c+kv effects have always reported k to be less than the resolution > of the apparatus. Anyways It doesn’t really matter if Ritz mentions rotational motion or not in his paper. It is a natural consequence of his disposing of the ether. By disposing of the ether he crossed the rubicon that no one , except for maybe Einstein , had. And the reason why he did this was because of MMX. Because MMX showed us that Nothing, not gravity, ether or relative motion, be it rotational or translational, effected the propagation of light in the lab/source frame of the experiment. It always appears to be at a constant speed isotropically in the lab. And so for DeSitter to pretend this ether free emission theory predicts a variable speed in the lab or at the double star is false. And contrary to any observational evidence we have of light propagation. Take this example. At dusk I shine a laser at a star, and continue to do so for six hours through the nite. Following the stars position with the laser beam. Are you and deSitter suggesting that the light leaving my laser is now travelling away from me at different speeds? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b028a857-4bd5-480b-aed6-5fe0aa8a1cd8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616493 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:09:30 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms > > of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest > > *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes > > it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, > > this does not affect the pulse. > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. You're mistaken, as shown by the very words you quoted. Ritz says that in an ether theory if an emitter P is moving through the ether and emits a spherical pulse at the instant when it is at point P' of the ether, the wave will thereafter be a sphere centered on P', whereas according to his proposal (which he calls the principle of relativity) the wave will thereafter be centered on P "if the motion of translation [of P] is uniform". The point is that it the motion of translation of P is not uniform, i.e., if P changes its state of motion after emitting the pulse, it obviously would not remain at the center of the spherical wave. > He specifically states that in his theory the waves always > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. Even when P moves *uniformly*. You missed the phrase "if the motion of translation is uniform". > > Consider this: Suppose you are holding two identical flashlights, and > > you emit a single pulse of light from one of the flashlights. As that > > pulse is zooming away, you can shake one of the flashlights, or the > > other. If you shake the flashlight that emitted the pulse, your belief > > is that it directy alters the speed and direction of the now distant > > pulse... but if you shake the other identical flashlight it has no > > effect at all on the distant pulse. Surely you agree that that is an > > exceedingly silly belief. > > Not silly at all. Surely if you think about it for a moment you'll see that your conception (which was clearly not Ritz's, as shown above) is completely absurd. An illustration of the manifest absurdity is given just above. > The MMX is only possible in emission theory if one assumes > that light always travels at c in straight lines in the > source frame as Ritz posits. Again, Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the moment of emission, but if the emitter subsequently accelerates by changing its state of motion, neither Ritz nor any other sentient being would ever imagine that this acceleration is imparted instantly to the previously emitted pulse. That is surely foreign to any ballistic behavior, and the absurdity is illustration in the example above. (Of course, in the MMX the emitter is essentially in uniform motion for the duration of time required for each pulse to traverse the apparatus, so your comment about that is utterly braindead. Duh.) > DeSitter pretends that light travelling away from the source can > be shaken back and forth in the source frame... Again, according to Ritz's (and other standard emission/ballistic) theory, the light moves inertially once it has been emitted, at constant speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the moment of emission. If the emitter is subsequently accelerated, this acceleration is not magically imparted to the distant pulses, an idea whose absurdity is illustrated by the flashlight example given above. Neither Ritz nor any other sentient being ever espoused such an absurdity. Agreed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebc64c76-bbd0-4e9d-8b3a-4d52c3182ad1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616504 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 14:46:53 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:09:30 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms > > > of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest > > > *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes > > > it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, > > > this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. > You're mistaken, as shown by the very words you quoted. Ritz says that > in an ether theory if an emitter P is moving through the ether and emits > a spherical pulse at the instant when it is at point P' of the ether, the wave > will thereafter be a sphere centered on P', whereas according to his proposal > (which he calls the principle of relativity) the wave will thereafter be > centered on P "if the motion of translation [of P] is uniform". The point > is that it the motion of translation of P is not uniform, i.e., if P changes > its state of motion after emitting the pulse, it obviously would not remain > at the center of the spherical wave. > > > He specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > Even when P moves *uniformly*. You missed the phrase "if the > motion of translation is uniform". > > > Consider this: Suppose you are holding two identical flashlights, and > > > you emit a single pulse of light from one of the flashlights. As that > > > pulse is zooming away, you can shake one of the flashlights, or the > > > other. If you shake the flashlight that emitted the pulse, your belief > > > is that it directy alters the speed and direction of the now distant > > > pulse... but if you shake the other identical flashlight it has no > > > effect at all on the distant pulse. Surely you agree that that is an > > > exceedingly silly belief. > > > > Not silly at all. > Surely if you think about it for a moment you'll see that your > conception (which was clearly not Ritz's, as shown above) is completely > absurd. An illustration of the manifest absurdity is given just above. > > > The MMX is only possible in emission theory if one assumes > > that light always travels at c in straight lines in the > > source frame as Ritz posits. > Again, Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms > of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the > moment of emission, but if the emitter subsequently accelerates > by changing its state of motion, neither Ritz nor any other sentient Actually that same source says Ritz also accounted for acceleration. Read it. And I’ll use the same argument as I have for Prokaryotic. Ritz devised his theory primarily to explain MMX. He knew MMX rotates around sun and earths axis yet gives a negative result despite this rotational motion. He died in 1909. DeSitter’s claim was made in 1913. Im sure Ritz would have had zero problem including rotational motion. Especially considering earths rotation is much faster than deSitters double star. And consider this. Even Translational motion must be considered under your rationale to be no less counter intuitive and crazy. After all Ritz has the light already emitted being dragged across an observers field of vision if the translational motion is perpendicular to the earth observers line of sight. What’s so different then about Ritz’s postulate being rotational and dragging the light as compared to translational and “dragging” the light? No difference. > being would ever imagine that this acceleration is imparted instantly > to the previously emitted pulse. That is surely foreign to any ballistic > behavior, and the absurdity is illustration in the example above. (Of > course, in the MMX the emitter is essentially in uniform motion for > the duration of time required for each pulse to traverse the apparatus, > so your comment about that is utterly braindead. Duh.) > > > DeSitter pretends that light travelling away from the source can > > be shaken back and forth in the source frame... > > Again, according to Ritz's (and other standard emission/ballistic) theory, > the light moves inertially once it has been emitted, at constant speed > in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest > at the moment of emission. If the emitter is subsequently accelerated, > this acceleration is not magically imparted to the distant pulses, an > idea whose absurdity is illustrated by the flashlight example given > above. Neither Ritz nor any other sentient being ever espoused such > an absurdity. Agreed? No. The only absurd claim is deSitter’s. He has an earth observer dragging light from a distant star back and forth across the distant stars frame. Completely bonkers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bde78cce-9c17-4fb2-8aa4-de621b27431an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616516 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:09:30 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms > > > > of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest > > > > *at the moment of emission*. If the source subsequently changes > > > > it state of motion, after a pulse of light has been emitted, > > > > this does not affect the pulse. > > > > > > > No. I get the opposite from Ritz. > > You're mistaken, as shown by the very words you quoted. Ritz says that > > in an ether theory if an emitter P is moving through the ether and emits > > a spherical pulse at the instant when it is at point P' of the ether, the wave > > will thereafter be a sphere centered on P', whereas according to his proposal > > (which he calls the principle of relativity) the wave will thereafter be > > centered on P "if the motion of translation [of P] is uniform". The point > > is that it the motion of translation of P is not uniform, i.e., if P changes > > its state of motion after emitting the pulse, it obviously would not remain > > at the center of the spherical wave. > > > > > He specifically states that in his theory the waves always > > > propagate in circles with their center at P. Even when P moves. > > Even when P moves *uniformly*. You missed the phrase "if the > > motion of translation is uniform". > > > > Consider this: Suppose you are holding two identical flashlights, and > > > > you emit a single pulse of light from one of the flashlights. As that > > > > pulse is zooming away, you can shake one of the flashlights, or the > > > > other. If you shake the flashlight that emitted the pulse, your belief > > > > is that it directy alters the speed and direction of the now distant > > > > pulse... but if you shake the other identical flashlight it has no > > > > effect at all on the distant pulse. Surely you agree that that is an > > > > exceedingly silly belief. > > > > > > Not silly at all. > > Surely if you think about it for a moment you'll see that your > > conception (which was clearly not Ritz's, as shown above) is completely > > absurd. An illustration of the manifest absurdity is given just above. > > > > > The MMX is only possible in emission theory if one assumes > > > that light always travels at c in straight lines in the > > > source frame as Ritz posits. > > Again, Ritz's hypothesis was that light propagates at speed c in terms > > of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the > > moment of emission, but if the emitter subsequently accelerates > > by changing its state of motion, neither Ritz nor any other sentient > > being would ever imagine that this acceleration is imparted instantly > > to the previously emitted pulse. That is surely foreign to any ballistic > > behavior, and the absurdity is illustration in the example above. > > Actually that same source says Ritz also accounted for acceleration. Again, Ritz stated quite plainly the obvious fact that if the emitter accelerates after emitting a pulse of light, this acceleration does not affect the pulse of light. Likewise if you shoot a bullet from a gun, and then subsequently you twirl the gun around, those twirls do not affect the trajectory of the bullet. Your belief that the bullet twirls in unison with the distant gun that fired it (but not with twirls of any other gun) is comically bizzare. > Ritz devised his theory primarily to explain MMX. Again, for the duration of time required for pulses of light to traverse the MMX appartatus, the lab is in essentially inertial motion, so your attempt to evade rationality by pointing to the MMX is utterly brain dead. Ritz had some odd ideas, but he was not mentally ill. > Even Translational motion must be considered under your > rationale to be no less counter intuitive and crazy. Not at all. The principle of inertia is a cornerstone of rational thought about physical phenomena. Entities move at constant speed in a straight line in terms of standard inertial coordinate systems unless acted upon locally. You seem to have fallen prey to the standard newbie misconception of thinking dynamics is purely relational. It is not. > What’s so different then about Ritz’s postulate being rotational > and dragging the light as compared to translational and “dragging” > the light? Ritz did not postulate "dragging", he postulated (like all standard emission/ ballistic theories) that light propagates at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the moment of emission. Again, if you fire a bullet from a gun, the bullet's speed and trajectory depends on the speed and orientation of the gun at the time the gun was fired, but it doesn't depend on how the gun's orientation or state of motion may subsequently change. Duh. > > Again, according to Ritz's (and other standard emission/ballistic) theory, > > the light moves inertially once it has been emitted, at constant speed > > in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest > > at the moment of emission. If the emitter is subsequently accelerated, > > this acceleration is not magically imparted to the distant pulses, an > > idea whose absurdity is illustrated by the flashlight example given > > above. Neither Ritz nor any other sentient being ever espoused such > > an absurdity. Agreed? > > DeSitter has an earth observer dragging light from a distant star back > and forth across the distant stars frame. Again, neither Ritz nor DeSitter nor any other sentient being has claimed that this involves "dragging". Ritz's hypothesis is the standard emission hypothesis that light propagates at c in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system in which the source was at rest at the moment of emission. Special relativity agrees with this. Neither of them hold your comically bizzare belief about magical dragging. They both hold that a pulse of light moves at constant speed in a straight line in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates. So all your beliefs are falsified. Now do you understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web