Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378322 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 234 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 14:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 19:31 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 12:57 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:16 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 11:09 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:19 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 03:52 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 20:29 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 15:44 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 19:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:37 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-13 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-12 14:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:53 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-12 17:10 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 18:22 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 21:00 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:32 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 13:34 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:31 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 19:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 04:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 18:34 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:26 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:10 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 19:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:42 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 10:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:04 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:22 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 09:23 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:49 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 04:55 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 21:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:34 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 12:41 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:31 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 05:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 10:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:46 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 20:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:08 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 18:19 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 08:55 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 18:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 22:19 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:01 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 13:51 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 09:48 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 16:05 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 17:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 11:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 14:16 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:52 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 06:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-10 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 07:11 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 10:32 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 21:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 20:02 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 19:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 11:40 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:10 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 12:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:39 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:36 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:01 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:14 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 13:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 14:24 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 10:33 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 03:54 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 19:51 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:07 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:12 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:04 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:51 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 21:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 05:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:43 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 09:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:49 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:45 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 07:30 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-18 17:01 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:09 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:39 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-18 17:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:05 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:28 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 20:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-19 17:58 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 20:04 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-23 10:15 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 19:22 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:24 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 06:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 17:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 18:17 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 19:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:45 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-23 13:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:05 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-18 05:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:41 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 10:33 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 11:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 12:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 15:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 23:18 -0400
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 10:06 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 13:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 11:59 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-16 12:45 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:26 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 06:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:53 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:17 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:49 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:17 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 21:47 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:00 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:19 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:33 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 21:02 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 05:51 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:39 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34a7d8a8-8615-427f-83a6-595358312fc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378891 |
Henry, Seems part of what you're saying is about who was worthy of credit, no? You think Einstein deserved less, Lorentz more.. That's a subjective thing. People might agree or disagree..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <27SdncrQv8QKdHvLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378900 |
On 3/13/16 3/13/16 - 11:19 PM, Jon Price wrote: > Henry, > Seems part of what you're saying is about who was worthy of credit, no? > You think Einstein deserved less, Lorentz more.. > That's a subjective thing. People might agree or disagree.. Well, in 1909 Lorentz credited Einstein with a better approach. And ALL of modern physics agrees -- Lorentz's approach is useless for finding other theories, while SR has become the cornerstone, and its (local) Lorentz invariance has proven to be essential in the derivation of ALL theories of modern physics. No aether theory, including LET, obeys Lorentz invariance. SR introduced the importance of symmetries (such as LI) as foundations of modern physics. This has been both essential and extremely fruitful.... Experimentally, deviations from local Lorentz invariance have been sought, but not found. Experiments have put upper limits on various types of deviations, and all are at least in the parts per million range, with some limits being parts per trillion (1E12). This does not affect the validity of LET, because while the theory does not obey local Lorentz invariance, its predictions do (and are identical to those of SR). This is not really about "credit", but rather about the structure of scientific theories, and their usefulness due to that structure. Henry doesn't have a clue.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc6r9o$1pbl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378950 |
On 3/14/2016 11:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > No aether theory, including LET, obeys Lorentz invariance. > SR introduced the importance of symmetries (such as LI) as > foundations of modern physics. This has been both essential > and extremely fruitful.... Just wanted to underscore this. Today, most theories of the interactions are based at ground level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is this symmetry of nature, which extended all the way out to his work with Cartan. This is both of physical and mathematical value and has literally influenced most of physics since. Lorentz ether theory was essentially a GUESS that the electromagnetic interactions happened to obey the transformations that lead to the Lorentz transformations. But there was no comment or implication that the symmetry was broader, extended to other interactions, or was in fact a fundamental feature of natural laws as a whole. So both Lorentz and Einstein (and Larmor) made stabs at explanations that ended up producing the same set of transforms, but Einstein chose an explanation that provided better and deeper insight, and which (as it turns out) has been validated in ways that LET would never be able to meet. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <A_Kdnbt_7vcNaHvLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378951 |
On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 12:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/14/2016 11:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> No aether theory, including LET, obeys Lorentz invariance. >> SR introduced the importance of symmetries (such as LI) as >> foundations of modern physics. This has been both essential >> and extremely fruitful.... > > Just wanted to underscore this. Today, most theories of the interactions are > based at ground level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was > revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is this symmetry of > nature, which extended all the way out to his work with Cartan. This is both of > physical and mathematical value and has literally influenced most of physics since. > > Lorentz ether theory was essentially a GUESS that the electromagnetic > interactions happened to obey the transformations that lead to the Lorentz > transformations. But there was no comment or implication that the symmetry was > broader, extended to other interactions, or was in fact a fundamental feature of > natural laws as a whole. > > So both Lorentz and Einstein (and Larmor) made stabs at explanations that ended > up producing the same set of transforms, but Einstein chose an explanation that > provided better and deeper insight, and which (as it turns out) has been > validated in ways that LET would never be able to meet. Yes to all that. Well said. I rarely reply to you, as I generally agree with what you say; I thought I'd reply here. While most people around here remain fixed in their opinions and ignorance, and never seem to learn anything, it's clear to me that you are an exception and have learned a lot. I daresay that's because in addition to this newsgroup you are also reading books on physics -- a worthy effort that deserves my applause. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <128b774e-ae01-4c15-9b98-8c70da3d0ab3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378955 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 18:32:02 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 12:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 3/14/2016 11:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> No aether theory, including LET, obeys Lorentz invariance. > >> SR introduced the importance of symmetries (such as LI) as > >> foundations of modern physics. This has been both essential > >> and extremely fruitful.... > > > > Just wanted to underscore this. Today, most theories of the interactions are > > based at ground level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was > > revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is this symmetry of > > nature, which extended all the way out to his work with Cartan. This is both of > > physical and mathematical value and has literally influenced most of physics since. > > > > Lorentz ether theory was essentially a GUESS that the electromagnetic > > interactions happened to obey the transformations that lead to the Lorentz > > transformations. But there was no comment or implication that the symmetry was > > broader, extended to other interactions, or was in fact a fundamental feature of > > natural laws as a whole. > > > > So both Lorentz and Einstein (and Larmor) made stabs at explanations that ended > > up producing the same set of transforms, but Einstein chose an explanation that > > provided better and deeper insight, and which (as it turns out) has been > > validated in ways that LET would never be able to meet. > > Yes to all that. Well said. Dont try to improvise too much. > I rarely reply to you, as I generally agree with what you say; I thought I'd > reply here. While most people around here remain fixed in their opinions and > ignorance, and never seem to learn anything, it's clear to me that you are an > exception and have learned a lot. I daresay that's because in addition to this > newsgroup you are also reading books on physics -- a worthy effort that deserves > my applause. Your naive, idiotic speech only depreciate the whole science. My little suggestion: you should operate on your own level, ie. you must stop on the orangutans level, do not try more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc70i1$tfd$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378955 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:A_Kdnbt_7vcNaHvLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > So both Lorentz and Einstein (and Larmor) made stabs at explanations that > ended > up producing the same set of transforms, but Einstein chose an explanation > that > provided better and deeper insight, and which (as it turns out) has been > validated in ways that LET would never be able to meet. |Yes to all that. Well said. Bunch of obvious lies, common between relativistic morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc77bn$ebl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378955 |
On 15/03/16 04:32, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/14/16 3/14/16 - 12:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/14/2016 11:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> No aether theory, including LET, obeys Lorentz invariance. >>> SR introduced the importance of symmetries (such as LI) as >>> foundations of modern physics. This has been both essential >>> and extremely fruitful.... >> >> Just wanted to underscore this. Today, most theories of the >> interactions are >> >> So both Lorentz and Einstein (and Larmor) made stabs at explanations >> that ended >> up producing the same set of transforms, but Einstein chose an >> explanation that >> provided better and deeper insight, and which (as it turns out) has been >> validated in ways that LET would never be able to meet. > > Yes to all that. Well said. > > I rarely reply to you, as I generally agree with what you say; I thought > I'd reply here. While most people around here remain fixed in their > opinions and ignorance, and never seem to learn anything, it's clear to > me that you are an exception and have learned a lot. I daresay that's > because in addition to this newsgroup you are also reading books on > physics -- a worthy effort that deserves my applause. Readers note: Tom Roberts and odd bodkin have just spent hours telling us that SR and LET always produce the same results and are now complimenting each other for similarly arguing that they don't. Einstein's is now better than Lorentz's. They are obviously trying to justify the fact that Einstein got all the credit for Lorentz's good work. In reality both theories are completely wrong and time would tell that Einstein's collaborators were undoubtedly amongst the world's best snake oil salesmen. > > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c52de58d-1aaf-44ee-b6b6-aa3695bac140@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378977 |
So Henry, please, "They are obviously trying to justify the fact that Einstein got all the credit for Lorentz's good work." It's about credit, no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8a6c3c0-f113-49e7-8864-347419bbc8b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378955 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:32:02 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Today, most theories of the interactions are based at ground > > level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was > > revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is > > this symmetry of nature, which extended all the way out to his > > work with Cartan. This is both of physical and mathematical > > value and has literally influenced most of physics since. PD's comment above is totally groundless. It is similar to religious scriptures --- all manmade shit. <shrug> > Yes to all that. Well said. Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 13:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc7tc7$19uq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379003 |
On 15/03/2016 11:14 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:32:02 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Today, most theories of the interactions are based at ground >>> level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was >>> revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is >>> this symmetry of nature, which extended all the way out to his >>> work with Cartan. This is both of physical and mathematical >>> value and has literally influenced most of physics since. > > PD's comment above is totally groundless. It is similar to religious scriptures --- all manmade shit. <shrug> > >> Yes to all that. Well said. > > Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug> I think they can see the end in sight....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc90r6$nn0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379011 |
On 3/14/2016 9:51 PM, HGW wrote: > On 15/03/2016 11:14 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:32:02 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Today, most theories of the interactions are based at ground >>>> level on symmetries of nature. In this sense, Einstein was >>>> revolutionary in stating that the ROOT CAUSE of relativity is >>>> this symmetry of nature, which extended all the way out to his >>>> work with Cartan. This is both of physical and mathematical >>>> value and has literally influenced most of physics since. >> >> PD's comment above is totally groundless. It is similar to religious >> scriptures --- all manmade shit. <shrug> >> >>> Yes to all that. Well said. >> >> Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug> > > I think they can see the end in sight.... > > You see the end in sight? Well, let's see if you die before the end arrives, shall we? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc95ve$cus$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379041 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 3/14/2016 9:51 PM, HGW wrote: >>> Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug> >> >> I think they can see the end in sight.... >You see the end in sight? >Well, let's see if you die before the end arrives, shall we? Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those who die off or get locked away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 10:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc9a0l$17oa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379049 |
On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 3/14/2016 9:51 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>> Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug> >>> >>> I think they can see the end in sight.... > >> You see the end in sight? >> Well, let's see if you die before the end arrives, shall we? > > Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and > engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the > anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those who > die off or get locked away. > It's worth noting that there are still kooks today who say that Aristotle was right and that Galileo and Newton were wrong. John Sefton, for example, believes that motion cannot continue infinitely without consumption of energy, and that any object in motion needs to have an impressed force or supply of energy to sustain that motion. Since Galileo and Newton set the world straight about that about 400 years ago, and it's been demonstrated to be correct experimentally for four centuries, and yet there are still kooks who say they just don't believe it, I think hoping that kooks will eventually die out is a futile dream. What's interesting is the claim by the kooks that when 20th century physicists die out, then physicists will revert to the 19th century physics the kooks are happier with. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 03:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc9eo8$1g8h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379055 |
On 16/03/16 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 3/14/2016 9:51 PM, HGW wrote: >> >>>>> Einstein dingleberries must be really desperate. <shrug> >>>> >>>> I think they can see the end in sight.... >> >>> You see the end in sight? >>> Well, let's see if you die before the end arrives, shall we? >> >> Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and >> engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the >> anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those >> who die off or get locked away. The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS are purely Newtonian. > It's worth noting that there are still kooks today who say that > Aristotle was right and that Galileo and Newton were wrong. John Sefton, > for example, believes that motion cannot continue infinitely without > consumption of energy, and that any object in motion needs to have an > impressed force or supply of energy to sustain that motion. Since > Galileo and Newton set the world straight about that about 400 years > ago, and it's been demonstrated to be correct experimentally for four > centuries, and yet there are still kooks who say they just don't believe > it, I think hoping that kooks will eventually die out is a futile dream. Bodkin, you really are completely stupid when it comes to understanding physics. Have you made your first wooden perpetual motion machine yet? There is no known system that refutes what Sefton said. In all practical situations, there is a loss of energy and there are probably sound theoretical reasons why that must always be the case. Even remote planetary movement results in tidal motion somewhere that involves a loss of energy. More importantly, there is a continuous increase in entropy due to irreversibility. Losses due to 'fields' will likely cause all motion in galaxies to cease, resulting in a collapse, until a massive SN restores entropy to zero again. > What's interesting is the claim by the kooks that when 20th century > physicists die out, then physicists will revert to the 19th century > physics the kooks are happier with. The head kooks are obviously those who have been conned by the Einstein conspiracy. Your idiot colleague Harnagel, for instance, typifies dingleberry mentality. He is so gullible he still believes there are little 'gods' floating around the universe, organizing the whole show.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc9p3d$rhv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379071 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 16/03/16 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and >>> engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the >>> anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those >>> who die off or get locked away. >The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS are purely >Newtonian. There are gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics? (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion posts stating how it uses/needs GR)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68c2b5de-4620-475c-a928-2bdde409aa03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379116 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 20:51:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > > >On 16/03/16 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and > >>> engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the > >>> anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those > >>> who die off or get locked away. > > >The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS are purely > >Newtonian. > > There are gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics? > > (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion > posts stating how it uses/needs GR) In the original Newtonian mechanics there are not possible such waves, because the wave is impossible within an empty space; but in the LET the waves are plainly obvious - like in the water: any motion leads directly to disturbances in the medium, which must further propagate around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 09:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nca12i$elf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379130 |
On 16/03/2016 7:52 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 20:51:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: >> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >> >>> On 16/03/16 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving scientists and >>>>> engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the >>>>> anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace those >>>>> who die off or get locked away. >> >>> The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS are purely >>> Newtonian. >> >> There are gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics? >> >> (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion >> posts stating how it uses/needs GR) It doesn't use it. The makers were simply conned into incorporating it so that the name 'Einstein' would be associated with the system. It doesn't matter what rate the clocks use so long as they are all in absolute synch. > In the original Newtonian mechanics there are not possible such waves, > because the wave is impossible within an empty space; Waves will occur in any field if a disturbance occurs...no sign of Einstein there! > but in the LET the waves are plainly obvious - > like in the water: any motion leads directly > to disturbances in the medium, which must further propagate around. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nca1ce$emd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379150 |
On 3/15/2016 5:07 PM, HGW wrote: > On 16/03/2016 7:52 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 20:51:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney >> napisał: >>> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 16/03/16 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 3/15/2016 9:24 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> Well, "the end" should be when the kooks die off, leaving >>>>>> scientists and >>>>>> engineers to invent cool stuff like LIGO and the GPS without the >>>>>> anklebiters, but alas, there will always be new kooks to replace >>>>>> those >>>>>> who die off or get locked away. >>> >>>> The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS are purely >>>> Newtonian. >>> >>> There are gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics? >>> >>> (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion >>> posts stating how it uses/needs GR) > > It doesn't use it. The makers were simply conned into incorporating it > so that the name 'Einstein' would be associated with the system. It > doesn't matter what rate the clocks use so long as they are all in > absolute synch. > >> In the original Newtonian mechanics there are not possible such waves, >> because the wave is impossible within an empty space; > > Waves will occur in any field if a disturbance occurs...no sign of > Einstein there! > >> but in the LET the waves are plainly obvious - >> like in the water: any motion leads directly >> to disturbances in the medium, which must further propagate around. >> > Henry, pretty soon you'll find that the only conversations you're having are with nincompoops who know no physics. I hope you enjoy your banter with Ken Seto, Maciej Wozniak, Alsor, Pentcho Valev, and Starmaker. I'm sure you'll feel bright in comparison, even though you are saying things just as stupid as they are. The thing is, the things you say you KNOW are stupid, but you say them anyway. What does this say about you? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 10:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nca4dg$jqu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379152 |
On 16/03/2016 9:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/15/2016 5:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion >>>> posts stating how it uses/needs GR) >> >> It doesn't use it. The makers were simply conned into incorporating it >> so that the name 'Einstein' would be associated with the system. It >> doesn't matter what rate the clocks use so long as they are all in >> absolute synch. >> >>> In the original Newtonian mechanics there are not possible such waves, >>> because the wave is impossible within an empty space; >> >> Waves will occur in any field if a disturbance occurs...no sign of >> Einstein there! >> >>> but in the LET the waves are plainly obvious - >>> like in the water: any motion leads directly >>> to disturbances in the medium, which must further propagate around. >>> >> > > Henry, pretty soon you'll find that the only conversations you're having > are with nincompoops who know no physics. Look who's talking...HAHHAHA! I hope you enjoy your banter > with Ken Seto, Maciej Wozniak, Alsor, Pentcho Valev, and Starmaker. I'm > sure you'll feel bright in comparison, even though you are saying things > just as stupid as they are. Seto and Starmaker are admittedly insane, which is why I rarely read their messages...but the most ridiculous posts of all undoubtedly emanate from the dingleberry side. > The thing is, the things you say you KNOW are stupid, but you say them > anyway. What does this say about you? Bodkin, you are only demonstrating you scientific ignorance. Around a charged sphere, there existed a divergent field. The sudden introduction of more charge will cause a wave in that field to propagate outwards at speed. A similar effect happens at every broadcasting antenna. Exactly the same will happen in a gravitational field. Nobody needed Einstein to tell them that. It was already well known and plainly obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 08:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncbode$pg5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379162 |
On 3/15/2016 6:04 PM, HGW wrote: > On 16/03/2016 9:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/15/2016 5:07 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>> (no need for me to comment on the GPS, there are already a bazillion >>>>> posts stating how it uses/needs GR) >>> >>> It doesn't use it. The makers were simply conned into incorporating it >>> so that the name 'Einstein' would be associated with the system. It >>> doesn't matter what rate the clocks use so long as they are all in >>> absolute synch. >>> >>>> In the original Newtonian mechanics there are not possible such waves, >>>> because the wave is impossible within an empty space; >>> >>> Waves will occur in any field if a disturbance occurs...no sign of >>> Einstein there! >>> >>>> but in the LET the waves are plainly obvious - >>>> like in the water: any motion leads directly >>>> to disturbances in the medium, which must further propagate around. >>>> >>> >> >> Henry, pretty soon you'll find that the only conversations you're having >> are with nincompoops who know no physics. > > Look who's talking...HAHHAHA! Well, you have a point. I'm having a conversation with a nincompoop who knows no physics. > > I hope you enjoy your banter >> with Ken Seto, Maciej Wozniak, Alsor, Pentcho Valev, and Starmaker. I'm >> sure you'll feel bright in comparison, even though you are saying things >> just as stupid as they are. > > Seto and Starmaker are admittedly insane, which is why I rarely read > their messages...but the most ridiculous posts of all undoubtedly > emanate from the dingleberry side. > >> The thing is, the things you say you KNOW are stupid, but you say them >> anyway. What does this say about you? > > Bodkin, you are only demonstrating you scientific ignorance. Around a > charged sphere, there existed a divergent field. The sudden introduction > of more charge will cause a wave in that field to propagate outwards at > speed. A similar effect happens at every broadcasting antenna. > Exactly the same will happen in a gravitational field. Nobody needed > Einstein to tell them that. It was already well known and plainly obvious. Funny that no one from 1675 to 1916 mentioned that Newtonian gravity predicts gravitational waves. Not one soul. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web