Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378322 > unrolled thread

Differences between LET and SR.

Started byHGW <hw@...>
First post2016-03-09 13:18 +1100
Last post2016-03-13 18:45 +1100
Articles 20 on this page of 234 — 27 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12  Next page →

#379451

FromGary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date2016-03-18 13:13 -0700
Message-ID<ac8fef0d-8eee-47ff-8a9d-b830ad1fca88@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379441
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:06:37 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 02:43:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the stupid const is
> > > nothing more but an arbitrary number...
> > > in any differential equation solution, babe.
> > 
> > Yep, and its derivative is ZERO, baby, therefore dE = 0, baby, which means
> > it's not dependent on momentum, velocity, mass, or the temperature of your
> > butt.

No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.

> > > In fact the stupid number: mc^2
> > > has been never noticed, measured, detected!
> > 
> > Assertion isn't evidence.  In this case, there is plenty of evidence.
> > Even the fool, "Henry Wilson" accepts that it's correct for atomic physics.

No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.

> > > It's just a fictitious number, which is promoted
> > > by the mainstream pseudoscience.
> > 
> > "It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is
> > proved." -- Galileo Galilei
> > 
> > "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
> > -- Galileo Galilei
> > 
> > > The final evidence about 'what is the light' has been presented long ago:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
> > > 
> > > You should notice: 'It is thus an example of an experimentum crucis.'
> > 
> > You should noticed that much has happened in the past two centuries:
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Experimental_observations_of_photoelectric_emission


No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.

> > > > These are 19th century definitions.  See how wrong those definitions
> > > > are?
> > > > The proper definition is p = gamma*m*v and E = gamma*m*c^2.
> > > 
> > > That formulas prove just the ether, thus the LET theory.
> > 
> > There is nothing in LET that refers to energy.  Are you a fool or a
> > dissembler?

No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.

> > > The SR, as a simplified, idealised version
> > > must preserve some facts... and approximately only.
> > > 
> > > Any model treated as a theory is a pure fallacy,
> > > something like: pi = 3;
> > > therefore the spacetime geometry, the quantum stupid songs, ect.
> > > are just improvisations, interpretations of naked.. idiots.
> > 
> > Completely delusional ranting.
> 
> Thats a stupid, pointless, political, speech only.
> Evidently you have no arguments.

Finally an abysmally-stupid response from the lame-brained troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379538

Fromalsor@interia.pl
Date2016-03-19 10:18 -0700
Message-ID<168d631d-6de3-4fb8-b539-8ade5e9d1fa6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379451
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 21:13:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:06:37 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 02:43:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the stupid const is
> > > > nothing more but an arbitrary number...
> > > > in any differential equation solution, babe.
> > > 
> > > Yep, and its derivative is ZERO, baby, therefore dE = 0, baby, which means
> > > it's not dependent on momentum, velocity, mass, or the temperature of your
> > > butt.
> 
> No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.
> 
> > > > In fact the stupid number: mc^2
> > > > has been never noticed, measured, detected!
> > > 
> > > Assertion isn't evidence.  In this case, there is plenty of evidence.
> > > Even the fool, "Henry Wilson" accepts that it's correct for atomic physics.
> 
> No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.
> 
> > > > It's just a fictitious number, which is promoted
> > > > by the mainstream pseudoscience.
> > > 
> > > "It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is
> > > proved." -- Galileo Galilei
> > > 
> > > "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
> > > -- Galileo Galilei
> > > 
> > > > The final evidence about 'what is the light' has been presented long ago:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
> > > > 
> > > > You should notice: 'It is thus an example of an experimentum crucis.'
> > > 
> > > You should noticed that much has happened in the past two centuries:
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Experimental_observations_of_photoelectric_emission
> 
> 
> No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.
> 
> > > > > These are 19th century definitions.  See how wrong those definitions
> > > > > are?
> > > > > The proper definition is p = gamma*m*v and E = gamma*m*c^2.
> > > > 
> > > > That formulas prove just the ether, thus the LET theory.
> > > 
> > > There is nothing in LET that refers to energy.  Are you a fool or a
> > > dissembler?
> 
> No response from the abysmally-stupid troll.
> 
> > > > The SR, as a simplified, idealised version
> > > > must preserve some facts... and approximately only.
> > > > 
> > > > Any model treated as a theory is a pure fallacy,
> > > > something like: pi = 3;
> > > > therefore the spacetime geometry, the quantum stupid songs, ect.
> > > > are just improvisations, interpretations of naked.. idiots.
> > > 
> > > Completely delusional ranting.
> > 
> > Thats a stupid, pointless, political, speech only.
> > Evidently you have no arguments.
> 
> Finally an abysmally-stupid response from the lame-brained troll.

I don't touch the strongly dogmatic imbeciles. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379543

FromGary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date2016-03-19 11:59 -0700
Message-ID<eaf5bc5d-c11a-4b90-97a0-d741848cd2ea@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379538
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:18:30 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 21:13:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:06:37 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > Thats a stupid, pointless, political, speech only.
> > > Evidently you have no arguments.
> > 
> > Finally an abysmally-stupid response from the lame-brained troll.
> 
> I don't touch the strongly dogmatic imbeciles. :)

Then be sure not to touch yourself :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379256

Fromalsor@interia.pl
Date2016-03-16 12:45 -0700
Message-ID<c196aa68-dc26-42f6-b108-e567d99190c7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379152
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 23:12:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 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

Indeed.
The so-called einsteinian gravitational waves are very physical,
because these are just the assumed in advance as a mathematical metrics oscilations... hehe!

Similar idiocy is served in the cosmology:
the expansion of space-time itself, the FRLW, ect.

These all are very physical entities,
but in the orangutans paranoormal activities only,
called populary as mainstream, just that!

These are just obvious examples of fallacious math incompetence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379163

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-03-15 23:20 +0000
Message-ID<nca5bm$g08$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#379150
HGW <hgw@...> writes:

>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.

Ralph, what about my question?

Are there gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics?
If not, how can they build LIGO using Newtonian mechanics?

You said "The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS
are purely Newtonian."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379165

FromHGW <hgw@...>
Date2016-03-16 10:26 +1100
Message-ID<nca5n4$m3e$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#379163
On 16/03/2016 10:20 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hgw@...> writes:

>>>>
>>>> (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.
>
> Ralph, what about my question?
>
> Are there gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics?
> If not, how can they build LIGO using Newtonian mechanics?

Of course there are gravitational waves in NM. They are similar to 
those which occur in an electrostatic field. The fact that Newton didn't 
know anything about either does not mean his theory does not include them.

> You said "The concept, design and successful operation of LIGO and GPS
> are purely Newtonian."

That is correct. NM has been extended since his death, you know....but 
the basics remain.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379207

FromProkaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-16 06:13 -0700
Message-ID<3418726b-23cb-4ab8-8f85-ae847199cbca@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379165
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:

> Of course there are gravitational waves in NM. They are similar to 
> those which occur in an electrostatic field. The fact that Newton didn't 
> know anything about either does not mean his theory does not include them.

No there are not. Newtonian Mechanics assumes instantaneous action at a distance.

Waves require a medium with a finite speed of propagation.

You cannot easily modify NM by adding ad hoc a finite speed of propagation. 
The Earth would fall into the Sun.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379209

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-16 08:53 -0500
Message-ID<ncbogh$pg5$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#379165
On 3/15/2016 6:26 PM, HGW wrote:
> Of course there are gravitational waves in NM. They are similar to those
> which occur in an electrostatic field. The fact that Newton didn't know
> anything about either does not mean his theory does not include them.

Nor did anyone, apparently, between 1675 and 1916.
You should write a paper, Henry, showing how Newtonian physics predicts 
gravitational waves. Submit it for publication in a respected journal. 
You'll be famous.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379212

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-03-16 14:33 +0000
Message-ID<ncbqs0$b3j$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#379165
HGW <hgw@...> writes:

>On 16/03/2016 10:20 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Ralph, what about my question?
>>
>> Are there gravitational waves in Newtonian mechanics?
>> If not, how can they build LIGO using Newtonian mechanics?

>Of course there are gravitational waves in NM. They are similar to 
>those which occur in an electrostatic field. The fact that Newton didn't 
>know anything about either does not mean his theory does not include them.

Nope.  Newtonian mechanics assumes gravity is instantaneous, of infinite
speed.  You can't have waves of any sort if the propogation speed
is infinite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379216

FromHGW <HGW@home.com>
Date2016-03-17 02:58 +1100
Message-ID<ncbvq8$18dv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#379212
On 17/03/16 01:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hgw@...> writes:
>

>
>> Of course there are gravitational waves in NM. They are similar to
>> those which occur in an electrostatic field. The fact that Newton didn't
>> know anything about either does not mean his theory does not include them.
>
> Nope.  Newtonian mechanics assumes gravity is instantaneous, of infinite
> speed.  You can't have waves of any sort if the propogation speed
> is infinite.

Whatever NM once assumed will be modified to cover whatever new facts 
are discovered.
NM will always underlie physics.
Lorentz was a physicist even if his LET was wrong. Einstein was a 
mathemagician, a plagiarist and an expert snake oil salesman.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379323

From"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date2016-03-17 14:29 +0100
Message-ID<ncebft$1c5$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#379165
On 16.03.2016 00:26, HGW wrote:
> NM has been extended since his death, you know....but
> the basics remain.

Can you please explain how Newtonian mechanics is extended?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379381

FromHGW <hgw@...>
Date2016-03-18 09:25 +1100
Message-ID<ncfarq$r9a$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#379323
On 18/03/2016 12:29 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 16.03.2016 00:26, HGW wrote:
>> NM has been extended since his death, you know....but
>> the basics remain.
>
> Can you please explain how Newtonian mechanics is extended?

Yes I can quite easily.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379519

FromCesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org>
Date2016-03-19 13:17 +0000
Message-ID<ncjjh5$13lr$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#379323
Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 16.03.2016 00:26, HGW wrote:
>> NM has been extended since his death, you know....but the basics
>> remain.
> 
> Can you please explain how Newtonian mechanics is extended?

Why, not extended enough yet there where you live? Just move.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379878

From"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date2016-03-22 20:49 +0100
Message-ID<ncs7kq$dk2$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#379519
On 19.03.2016 14:17, Cesare Pancratius 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]

#378965

Fromalsor@interia.pl
Date2016-03-14 11:35 -0700
Message-ID<dcd03bce-c0e5-4950-bfc4-a72291ad4554@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#378951
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 18:10:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> 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.

There are bilions of such transformations, idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378953

FromJon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-14 10:17 -0700
Message-ID<e6a97a89-d955-4ee7-ac11-5052493771c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#378950
Henry,

Can you please direct us to a reference of the following?

"As he said himself, If an absolute aether did 
not exist, his theory would collapse."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378976

FromHGW <HGW@home.com>
Date2016-03-15 07:23 +1100
Message-ID<nc76k4$d31$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#378953
On 15/03/16 04:17, Jon Price wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Can you please direct us to a reference of the following?
>
> "As he said himself, If an absolute aether did
> not exist, his theory would collapse."

No....It was in  of his late comments. It is also pretty obvious why he 
said it. SR presumes an absolute medium in order to ensure the source 
independence stated in his P2. It existed in LET and therefore had to 
remain in Einstein's plagiarized modification.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379129

From"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date2016-03-15 21:47 +0100
Message-ID<nc9sdt$jve$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#378953
On 14.03.2016 18:17, Jon Price wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Can you please direct us to a reference of the following?
>
> "As he said himself, If an absolute aether did
> not exist, his theory would collapse."
>

Einstein never said that, but the source of
the misquotation is probably the famous lecture
Einstein held at the University of Leiden in 1920:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
<<
  Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
  theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
  in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According
  to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
  unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no
  propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence
  for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
  nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
  But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
  characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which
  may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied
  to it.
 >>

Einstein seems to use "ether" as a synonym for "space-time".
Note the last sentences:
  "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
   characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which
   may be tracked through time.
   The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

This is definitely not the classical "luminiferous ether".

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379140

Fromalsor@interia.pl
Date2016-03-15 14:52 -0700
Message-ID<8e86ac14-ce81-4a67-a2e9-a5f0caffd454@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379129
W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 21:47:59 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> Einstein seems to use "ether" as a synonym for "space-time".
> Note the last sentences:
>   "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
>    characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which
>    may be tracked through time.
>    The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


He reports the Poincare's sentences only.

Simply: the ether can't be a material in the same sense
like the standard atomic matter - the massive bodies are,
thus it must be immaterial in some our sense. :)

Just as the blood can not be a component of
the blood itself in any rational theory.


> This is definitely not the classical "luminiferous ether".

The Lorentzs ether is not the Maxwellian "luminiferous ether"..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379144

FromJon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-15 15:00 -0700
Message-ID<387a0364-a643-4a1c-abac-de9302de08a9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#379140
Wow. Almost as divisive and chaotic here as in the U.S. political scene.
Physics?
Who would have thought?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web