Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbc4fc$18ja$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377871 |
On 3/4/2016 3:03 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Who knows indeed! :-) > That the Caesium (an Rubidium) atoms are affected by > "cutting Earth's gravity field lines" is even more > idiotic than your previous claim. Henry would rather say, "There are a thousand alternative explanations I can think of that haven't been definitively ruled out, and therefore the matching of the prediction of relativity to the measured results should be considered invalidated until EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is ruled out." Thomas Heger just proposed in another thread that the matching of the prediction of gravitational waves from merging black holes and the signal observed at LIGO could also be explained by government black ops or aliens from other dimensions or fraud or errors in calculations. It's the same thing: "I'm not obligated to believe relativity. But you are certainly welcome to try to make me believe." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <14ac4ed9-7a9a-489b-8663-edb4be7f0709@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377880 |
W dniu piątek, 4 marca 2016 15:01:19 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > It's the same thing: "I'm not obligated to believe relativity. But you > are certainly welcome to try to make me believe." While even morons like you are not stupid enough to use your "standard, good and proper" clocks - it will be rather difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbcfjd$1v26$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377880 |
On 3/4/2016 8:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 3:03 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Who knows indeed! :-) >> That the Caesium (an Rubidium) atoms are affected by >> "cutting Earth's gravity field lines" is even more >> idiotic than your previous claim. > > Henry would rather say, "There are a thousand alternative explanations I > can think of that haven't been definitively ruled out, and therefore the > matching of the prediction of relativity to the measured results should > be considered invalidated until EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is ruled out." > > Thomas Heger just proposed in another thread that the matching of the > prediction of gravitational waves from merging black holes and the > signal observed at LIGO could also be explained by government black ops > or aliens from other dimensions or fraud or errors in calculations. > > It's the same thing: "I'm not obligated to believe relativity. But you > are certainly welcome to try to make me believe." > And of course, suppose you jump on that and say, "By golly, I will make an argument that only a fool wouldn't believe!" and you give it your best shot. You will have then indulged Henry, at which point he will say, "But I still don't believe it." At which point, you will say, "Then you are a fool," and he will say, "You have failed to provide a convincing argument." And you'll be right back at the start, except that Henry will have expended no effort and you will have expended considerable effort, and Henry will celebrate what he has manipulated you into doing. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbcovj$hj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377894 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:11:19 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 8:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/4/2016 3:03 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Who knows indeed! :-) >>> That the Caesium (an Rubidium) atoms are affected by "cutting Earth's >>> gravity field lines" is even more idiotic than your previous claim. >> >> Henry would rather say, "There are a thousand alternative explanations >> >> It's the same thing: "I'm not obligated to believe relativity. But you >> are certainly welcome to try to make me believe." >> >> > And of course, suppose you jump on that and say, "By golly, I will make > an argument that only a fool wouldn't believe!" and you give it your > best shot. You will have then indulged Henry, at which point he will > say, "But I still don't believe it." Bodkin, physicists don't hold beliefs. Only religious fanatics like you and your bible bashing colleague Harnegal do. > At which point, you will say, "Then > you are a fool," and he will say, "You have failed to provide a > convincing argument." And you'll be right back at the start, except that > Henry will have expended no effort and you will have expended > considerable effort, and Henry will celebrate what he has manipulated > you into doing. Bodkin, I feel genuinely sorry for hopelessly indoctrinated people in general. I really don't know why I continue trying to help them understand the meaning of truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <c4984271-7459-48f1-9192-be508088abd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377904 |
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > Bodkin, physicists don't hold beliefs. Of course they do, dissembling one. They believe in the scientific method. They believe that the universe is understandable and if you repeat an experiment you will get they same results within reason. This is not true of insane people: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein > Only religious fanatics like you and your bible bashing colleague Harnegal > do. The REAL religious fanatic here is "Henry George Wilson" who believes he can decipher the presence of a refuted ballistic theory by torturing data. > Bodkin, I feel genuinely sorry for hopelessly indoctrinated people in > general. Then feel sorry for yourself because you have brainwashed yourself into believing fantasies. > I really don't know why I continue trying to help them > understand the meaning of truth. You wouldn't know truth if it bit your butt. "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." -- Albert Einstein "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." -- Albert Einstein "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." --- Friedrich Nietzsche I really feel sorry for you because you are deaf to reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbd4p8$15pg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377907 |
On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: >> >> Bodkin, physicists don't hold beliefs. Of course they do. They believe in the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum and the conservation of charge, and they believe those things as strongly as they believe that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Which is not to say that ANYONE is 100% solid that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. But it is certain enough to behave AS THOUGH it were certain the sun is coming up tomorrow. To say that a scientist doesn't believe ANYTHING is true is flat-out ridiculous. If it were the way Henry says, there would be no recognized laws of physics, only conjectures of physics. There would be no accepted theories, only maybe entertained theories. I recognize however that Henry would LIKE things to be generally with little to no certainty, so that even random speculations would have the same scientific credibility as anything else. > > Of course they do, dissembling one. They believe in the scientific method. > They believe that the universe is understandable and if you repeat an > experiment you will get they same results within reason. This is not true > of insane people: > > "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different > results." -- Albert Einstein > >> Only religious fanatics like you and your bible bashing colleague Harnegal >> do. > > The REAL religious fanatic here is "Henry George Wilson" who believes he > can decipher the presence of a refuted ballistic theory by torturing data. > > >> Bodkin, I feel genuinely sorry for hopelessly indoctrinated people in >> general. Believing that the laws of physics are in fact laws of physics is not indoctrination. Indoctrination is when you believe something WITHOUT VALIDATION. Science uses experiment to provide validation. Henry dismisses experiment, saying it can't possibly be good enough to test what it claims to test. So by dismissing the validation, Henry tries to reduce the beliefs of physicists to indoctrination. Pretty poor shot. > > Then feel sorry for yourself because you have brainwashed yourself into > believing fantasies. > >> I really don't know why I continue trying to help them >> understand the meaning of truth. > > You wouldn't know truth if it bit your butt. > > "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." > -- Albert Einstein > > "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same > as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source > ... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." > -- Albert Einstein > > "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those > who could not hear the music." --- Friedrich Nietzsche > > I really feel sorry for you because you are deaf to reality. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbn9dp$1nid$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377912 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:12:51 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> >>> Bodkin, physicists don't hold beliefs. > > Of course they do. They believe in the law of conservation of energy and > the law of conservation of momentum and the conservation of charge, and > they believe those things as strongly as they believe that the sun is > going to come up tomorrow. Which is not to say that ANYONE is 100% solid > that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. But it is certain enough to > behave AS THOUGH it were certain the sun is coming up tomorrow. To say > that a scientist doesn't believe ANYTHING is true is flat-out > ridiculous. If it were the way Henry says, there would be no recognized > laws of physics, only conjectures of physics. There would be no accepted > theories, only maybe entertained theories. > > I recognize however that Henry would LIKE things to be generally with > little to no certainty, so that even random speculations would have the > same scientific credibility as anything else. Bodkin, it is obvious why you could never become a scientist. The correct behaviour is to either KNOW something or keep an open mind about it. Belief has no place in physics. >> The REAL religious fanatic here is "Henry George Wilson" who believes >> he can decipher the presence of a refuted ballistic theory by torturing >> data. >> >> >>> Bodkin, I feel genuinely sorry for hopelessly indoctrinated people in >>> general. > > Believing that the laws of physics are in fact laws of physics is not > indoctrination. Indoctrination is when you believe something WITHOUT > VALIDATION. Science uses experiment to provide validation. Henry > dismisses experiment, saying it can't possibly be good enough to test > what it claims to test. So by dismissing the validation, Henry tries to > reduce the beliefs of physicists to indoctrination. Pretty poor shot. You still don't understand and never will. Beliefs are not part of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <nbn9rn$1obe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377907 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:12:50 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: > You wouldn't know truth if it bit your butt. > > "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." > -- Albert Einstein > > "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as > that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ... > They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." > -- Albert Einstein > > "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those > who could not hear the music." --- Friedrich Nietzsche > > I really feel sorry for you because you are deaf to reality. ...says the bible bashing idiot.... Hey shitforbrains, why don't you worship the DNA molecule instead of some halucinatry god thing? DNA is known to be the creator of all life in the universe and definitely exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Free energy |
| Message-ID | <8b9c695c-e387-4838-99dd-74966ee36bb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378299 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:40:45 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > [his usual lies and disgusting vulgarities] When is "Henry" going to realize that he has lost all credibility because of his outrageous lies and trollish behavior? Nobody cares anymore what he says or thinks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kZ6dneP0keqA1kHLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377745 |
On 3/2/16 3/2/16 2:01 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 09:22:48 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/1/16 3/1/16 - 8:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> There seem to be several cases besides the local strength of gravity or >>> relative motion of the nearest reference frame to establish conditions >>> of configuration and precision (or energy) >>> of experiment leads to time dilation or clock skew. >> >> There are, and they are described accurately by GR. > > Nonsense. That has never been proved. Essentially everything you write shows how little you actually know about science. "Proof" has no place in science. But it has been demonstrated MANY TIMES that GR does indeed accurately describe the behavior of clocks. > The clocks obviously physically change when sent into > orbit. This is only "obvious" to someone who does not understand the issues, and who prefers his own personal FANTASIES to actual measurements. The Cs oscillator in a GPS satellite runs at 9,192,631,770 Hz BY DEFINITION, and this fact is in part what forced the GPS designers to use a nonstandard timekeeping mechanism in the satellites. > IF CESIUM ATOMS WERE AS STABLE AS TOM SEEMS TO BELIEVE, THE CLOCKS WOULD > NOT DRIFT AT ALL AND NO ADJUSTMENTS DAILY CORRECTIONS WOULD BE NEEDED. Again you are fantasizing. There are many mechanisms that cause the GPS clocks to drift, including some intrinsic drift in their oscillators. Note that the daily corrections are more than 1000 times smaller than the modification to the divider in the satellite's timekeeping mechanism. Moreover, the daily corrections tend to cancel one another over time [#], while the modification does not. [#] Except for a few satellites with obvious problems. > The fundamental requirement for the successful operation of the GPS > system is that all orbiting clocks must be in absolute synch with each > other. Nope. Again you put your personal fantasies above the actual requirements, the actual GPS design, and the measured behavior of its components. There is no requirement for "absolute sync", in part because that simply is not possible. The ACTUAL requirement is that THE SIGNALS from all GPS clocks be synchronized in the ECI frame for receivers on earth. There is nothing "absolute" here; GPS time would not remain in sync with a standard atomic clock in an airliner, satellite, or even a car at highway speed; ditto for one on a mountaintop. > Any error in ground clock reading cancels out in the calculations. Again, only in your personal fantasies. The actual GPS has requirements that include its ground clocks. > Fortunately for all, the inclusion of the notorious 'GR correction' does > not destroy the system because the actual rate at which the clocks run is > quite arbitrary. Again, only in your personal fantasies. The actual GPS has requirements that include keeping GPS time within 1 us of UTC. Unmodified satellite clocks would violate that requirement within an hour. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbhkrk$5fs$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378017 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:kZ6dneP0keqA1kHLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |"Proof" has no place in science. But it has been demonstrated MANY TIMES that GR |does indeed accurately describe the behavior of clocks. GR so many times described, that the indications of these clocks will be t'=t...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <483a226f-207e-4ff9-b38b-fd5e4ee06e63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377245 |
El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 14:06:40 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 2/26/16 2/26/16 - 8:57 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 7:37:44 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > >> Second, the "ticks" of flying atomic clocks do not change their > >> frequencies, so an astronaut flying with the atomic clock will not see any > >> clock variation whatsoever. > >> > > Completely FALSE, > > No. YOU got it wrong. You seem to think that "moving clocks run slow" and > "higher clocks run fast" -- these sound bites are WRONG (even though all too > many elementary books use them). > Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his June 30 first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a “clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions”; in that epoch he does not know yet that "higher clocks run fast", but both assertions are already well established EXPERIMENTAL FACTS since the launching of the first GPS satellite and the continuous until today very successful system operation. Read the story in the proper literal words of one of the scientists involved in the project: Neil Ashby,”Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, p.18-19 (between [[ ]]): http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf [[ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10E12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10E12. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. [5] Alley, C., “Proper time experiments in gravitational fields with atomic clocks, aircraft, and laser light pulses”, in Meystre, P., and Scully, M. O., eds., Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on Quantum Optics and Experimental General Relativity, August 1981, Bad Windsheim, Germany, 363, (Plenum Press, New York, 1983). [11] Buisson, J.A., Easton, R.L., and McCaskill, T.B., “Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite”, in Rueger, L. et al., ed., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval Applications and Planning Meeting, 177–200, (Technical Information and Administrative Support Division, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, 1977). http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf ]] Resuming the story of the first GPS satellite launching, a clock at ground before the launching with the synchronizing 10.23 MHz frequency of the ECI, is put in the desired circular orbit. After very carefully observation during 20 days, its frequency presents an INCREMENT of +442.5 parts in 10E12, pretty close to the +446.5 predicted by SR-GR ; returning to the previous 10.23 MHz when a frequency divider designed previously according to that prediction is connected, putting end to all the doubts existing about the existence, magnitude and sign of relativistic changes in a clock frequency due to changes in velocity and gravitational potential, at least in the GPS personal until our days. Since 1977, in all the following GPS satellite launching, the frequency divider is already connected at ground before the launching, assuring the desired 10.23 MHz frequency for the operative clock in orbit, corresponding to a ground frequency before the launching of 10.2299999954326 MHz (more accurate recent value, the 1977 one was 10.22999999543). > NOTE: This does depend on what one means by "clock", and YOU have been sloppy > about it. The Cs oscillator in the satellite ticks at its usual rate of > 9,192,631,770 Hz, but the GPS timekeeping mechanism in the satellite does not > use that value, it uses a slightly larger divider value for "GPS time" that was > computed specifically so the signals received on earth will have the correct > frequency (10.23 MHz) and time intervals THERE. > For me clock is always a device showing the time defined by 1905 Einstein for a stationary system, what implies a virtual (or real) clock in ALL the corresponding stationary space points where any event can occur in the time instant showed by it. No, the Cs oscillator has the frequency that you mention ONLY in the Earth's geoid. According to the knowledge obtained since the first GPS satellite launching (magnified a lot after decades of very successful function), the increase in frequency after the satellite is put in orbit only can correspond to an increase in the Cs oscillator one, because the frequency divider is designed with a constant factor that does not depend on velocity or gravitational potential. All GPS clocks are synchronized following the 1905 Einstein definition for the time of a stationary system where Newtonian equations hold good and Euclidean geometry is used, that fortunately is the same Newtonian center of mass system corresponding to all Earth’s parts that he introduces at the end of Section 4 of his Jun 30 paper, what implies that ALL clocks must have the SAME designed 10.23 MHz operating frequency after the corresponding synchronization. You seem here not having some basic knowledge about telecommunication channels. The carrier frequency of ANY channel is totally arbitrary and is NOT a transmitted or received data. There exist two different channels that broadcast information from the satellites to the ECI stationary space of the GPS. The use of 10.23 MHz as the source for the carrier frequencies is only an economic design decision of the system, having no relation at all with the time defined by 1905 Einstein. To facilitate your understanding, I will analyze the content of the following more relevant paragraph (between [[ ]]) of a GPS technical information addressing the communication channels that broadcast to the ECI stationary space the information showed by the devices inside the operative satellites. [[ GPS Interface Specification IS-GPS-200H , 24 Sep 2013, authenticated by Michael J. Duran on 21 Mar 2014, p.13-14. 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. ]] The Space Vehicle SV is the operating satellite, the two different communication channels are characterized by the corresponding carrier frequencies L1 and L2, derived from the common frequency source within the SV, the operative atomic clock that we know must be synchronized with ALL the other GPS clocks, including the satellite ones, at the unique 10.23 MHz frequency that represents the common time defined by 1905 Einstein for ALL the stationary space points of the corresponding ECI stationary system. The 10.23 MHz frequency does NOT correspond to a transmitted signal from one place and received in another. It is already present in ALL places, in a real or a virtual clock. You have already all the necessary information to understand why your view of a satellite clock transmitting a 10.2299999954326 MHz signal and observed in the ground as a 12.23 MHz one is completely FALSE, in contradiction with the HUGE experimental evidence already available. The synchronized clocks in the satellites (as ANY other one in ANY place of the ECI stationary system, real or virtual) have already the 10.23 MHz frequency. > Actually, since the earth rotates and has mountains, this > last is not quite true (because "on earth" is not specific > enough). What they actually do is arrange so every GPS clock > always displays the value that a hypothetical co-located > coordinate clock of the ECI frame would show. This is so for > GPS clocks in satellites and on the ground. An unmodified > atomic clock displays the ECI time only when at rest on > earth's geoid (mean sea level). > After synchronization (when the GPS is operative), does not exist at all any data reception of a 10.23 MHz signal "on earth" or any other place. See my previous comment addressing this topic. > In particular, an unmodified Cs clock ALWAYS ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz, > regardless of where it is located or how it might move. It is, of course, > displaying time in its locally-inertial rest frame. > You say in just your previous comment that an unmodified atomic clock displays the ECI time ONLY when at rest on earth's geoid (more exactly, when the effect of velocity and gravitational potential in the output frequency have equal absolute values and different signs, as it is always the case in the geoid). How can you say now that an unmodified Cs clock ALWAYS ticks at the same frequency regardless of where it is located or how it might move? > > > we can repeat today very easily the conditions of the first GPS satellite > > launching, adding today an astronaut together with the atomic clock. At > > ground before the launching the clock has the 10.23 MHz GPS operative > > frequency; later after the launching, the astronaut can verify that the > > clock frequency is GREATER than 10.23 MHz, returning to that frequency when > > the corresponding correction stuff is put on. > > Nope. YOU got it BACKWARDS. The astronaut would see the unmodified clock tick at > 10.23 MHz, changing to a lower frequency when the "correction stuff is put on". I hope that you already understand that ALL synchronized clocks in the ECI, including the satellite ones, remain always showing the SAME 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency. > This OUGHT to be obvious, because the astronaut will of course use the standard > definition of the second (9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs oscillator). > Do not increase the complexity of the astronaut’s job. Here he (or she) is only the witness of what frequency the clock is showing. Since 1977 that definition is already in the practical use (at least in GPS) restricted to the Earth's geoid. > > > When the correction is put on at ground (before the launching), the > > frequency changes from 10.23 to 10.2999999543 MHz, returning later to 10.23 > > MHz when put in orbit (the today ordinary GPS routine). > > You are confusing the frequency of the oscillator/clock with the frequency of > SIGNALS OBSERVED ON THE GROUND. > I hope that you already understand that in the ECI nothing (including humans) transmits or receives a 10.23 MHz signal in any place. What exists all the time in all the places does not need at all to be transmitted or received never. > As you are looking after the divider, the satellite clock ALWAYS ticks at > 10.2999999543 MHz, regardless of whether it is on the ground or in orbit. But > when it is in orbit, SIGNALS from it received ON THE GROUND (geoid) arrive at > 10.23 MHz. > Once synchronized at 10.23 MHz (system operative), ALL ECI clocks ticks at that same frequency all the time. 10.23 MHz SIGNALS do not exist at all in the operative GPS ECI. > Note this is not really what most people call a "clock". > A clock should advance 1 second for every second of elapsed > proper time, and this mechanism does not do that. > The 1905 Einstein time definition says nothing about "proper time", a concept developed a little later. Any synchronized clock in the ECI advances 1 second for every second of elapsed 1905 Einstein defined unique common time of the ECI. Most people have no problem at all with clocks, including the ones showing the 1905 Einstein defined time. > Beware of unacknowledged PUNs -- "clock" has two different > meanings in this thread. I have taken care to distinguish > them, but YOU have not, and have confused yourself. > I don't think so. Yourself is a witness that for me clock is always what measures the time defined by 1905 Einstein for a stationary system. > > > As you can see, the corresponding atomic clock change in frequency (according > > to SR and GR predictions) after a change in velocity and gravitational > > potential, is a well-known EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite > > launching. > > This is also wrong. The experimental fact is that OBSERVATIONS of SIGNALS FROM a > moving clock are slow compared to the clock itself, and that OBSERVATIONS of > SIGNALS FROM a clock at higher gravitational potential are faster than the clock > itself. > Topic already addressed in all detail in previous comments. BTW, how you define “clock itself”? > Partly this is just basic English usage. When one says "the > clock tick rate" they INHERENTLY are referring to the clock > ITSELF, and not to signals from the clock. So every clock > ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, but SIGNALS from it can have > a different rate. This means that an earthbound observer simply > cannot observe the tick rate of a clock in a satellite; that's > why an astronaut was described in the earlier post. > I put the astronaut joint to the clock in the satellite, to remain faithful to 1905 Einstein time definition, always compatible with the existence of a synchronized clock in ANY stationary space point of the corresponding stationary system where any event can occur. ANY observer in the ECI knows already the time rate of ANY clock in the ECI, by the simple reason that ALL the time rates correspond to the unique 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency of the common time defined by 1905 Einstein. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > [... further confusions about this] > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <49KdnQEUzKFK_kXLnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377755 |
On 3/2/16 3/2/16 6:57 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 26 de febrero de 2016, 14:06:40 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> You seem to think that "moving clocks run slow" and "higher clocks run >> fast" -- these sound bites are WRONG (even though all too many elementary >> books use them). >> > Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his June 30 > first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a “clock at the equator > must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock > situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions”; Yes. Einstein got it wrong back in 1905, too. The full ramifications of SR had not yet been worked out or understood. By the time he wrote about GR, in 1915, he knew better. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb9rhg$1f2o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377793 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his >> June 30 first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a “clock >> at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a >> precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise >> identical conditions”; > > Yes. Einstein got it wrong back in 1905, too. The full ramifications of > SR had not yet been worked out or understood. By the time he wrote about > GR, in 1915, he knew better. Why should be that. The equatore moves more along a larger path, then the pole. In this context the pole moves insignificantly. I'm afraid that Einstein got it right and it is you getting it wrong. You and David Waite are probably some of those relativity deniers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nba0gs$2o1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377797 |
On 03.03.2016 18:16, Helene Swanhild wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbadff$gn8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377802 |
On 04/03/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 03.03.2016 18:16, Helene Swanhild wrote: > > [] > > It doesn't help to change your name, > the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. > > One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make > a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person NOT constantly change his name and write nonsense only. > plonk > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbaf1d$ju3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377831 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On 04/03/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 03.03.2016 18:16, Helene Swanhild wrote: >> > [] >> >> It doesn't help to change your name, >> the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. >> >> One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person >> constantly change his name and write nonsense only. > > One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person NOT > constantly change his name and write nonsense only. The man is apparently self mental disturbed, by doing the same to several different people. He is popping in just to say he plonks :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbbjbj$4bi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377831 |
On 03.03.2016 23:22, Henry Wilson wrote: > > One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make > a person NOT constantly change his name and write nonsense only. > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChangeName.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f1eaf64-8702-4272-abbd-8dcb51cb63c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377797 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:16:37 PM UTC-3, Helene Swanhild wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his > >> June 30 first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a "clock > >> at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a > >> precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise > >> identical conditions"; > > > > Yes. Einstein got it wrong back in 1905, too. The full ramifications of > > SR had not yet been worked out or understood. By the time he wrote about > > GR, in 1915, he knew better. > > Why should be that. The equatore moves more along a larger path, then the > pole. In this context the pole moves insignificantly. I'm afraid that > Einstein got it right and it is you getting it wrong. You and David Waite > are probably some of those relativity deniers. And you are.........yes, the nym-shifting moronic troll!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77e0093f-f3f0-466a-a9b8-141c9755616e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377797 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-7, Helene Swanhild wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> >> Not only in the elementary books, but also 1905 Einstein says (in his
> >> June 30 first Relativity paper at the end of Section 4) that a “clock
> >> at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a
> >> precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise
> >> identical conditions”;
> >
> > Yes. Einstein got it wrong back in 1905, too. The full ramifications of
> > SR had not yet been worked out or understood. By the time he wrote about
> > GR, in 1915, he knew better.
>
> Why should be that. The equatore moves more along a larger path, then the
> pole. In this context the pole moves insignificantly. I'm afraid that
> Einstein got it right and it is you getting it wrong. You and David Waite
> are probably some of those relativity deniers.
Huh? Have you done the general relativistic calculation Helene Swanhild? Would you even know where to begin? If not you're a crank for your assertions. Since I already know that's the case, I'll just tell you how to do it. You start by writing down the line element for the spacetime. A good enough weak field approximation for this is
ds²={1+[Φ/(2c²)]}²dct²/{1-[Φ/(2c²)]}² - {1-[Φ/(2c²)]}²(dr²+r²dΩ²)
where Φ is the Newtonian gravitational potential for the oblate earth.
You then use this to describe the world line of something at a pole
dτ(pole)={1+[Φ(pole)/(2c²)]}dt/{1-[Φ(pole)/(2c²)]}
You then use it to describe the wold line of something at the equator
dτ(equator) = dt*sqrt[({1+[Φ(equator)/(2c²)]}²/{1-[Φ(equator)/(2c²)]}² - {1-[Φ(equator)/(2c²)]}²(r²ω²/c²))]
You then compare what you get for
dt/dτ for the two cases.
Have you done this for any weak field approximation for it, ever? If not, why are you making assertions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web