Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:37 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:47 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:36 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:32 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:15 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 15:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 11:36 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 18:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:56 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 03:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:01 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 00:04 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 20:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 04:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 12:23 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:38 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:22 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:36 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:47 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 21:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 22:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:31 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:11 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:28 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:06 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:47 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:55 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 19:23 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-18 20:05 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:14 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:01 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:48 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 01:25 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:34 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:48 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:24 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 08:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 15:52 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-26 14:55 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-26 07:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 05:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-28 09:13 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 20:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-28 12:01 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:01 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 12:03 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-29 14:05 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 14:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-28 15:55 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:07 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 11:24 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-30 20:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:49 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-31 07:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-31 20:08 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:05 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 19:12 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:19 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:24 +0200
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 13:29 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:11 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-21 01:45 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:50 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 20:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:59 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 03:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:09 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 20:01 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 21:46 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 21:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:56 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:19 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 08:03 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:21 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 21:43 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 22:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 05:16 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:37 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:31 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:44 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:55 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:09 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 17:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:26 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 01:54 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 19:33 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:03 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 05:28 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:00 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 03:27 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:29 +1100
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92f1839b-5a0e-47e9-97b0-4d1c835f148d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380471 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:50:25 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 30/03/16 20:43, David Waite wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:09:09 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > >>> > >>> Quite. > >>> Paul will even do the dirty trick of stating the facts! :-D > >> > >> From what I read NASA had very little direct interest. Rather it obtained the > >> path details from some dingleberry in Spain. ..who also used c rather than c+v. > > > > So you're such a complete moron that you don't even know that dingleberry comes > > from Herbert Dingle, anti-relativity crankdom. Damn you're slow. > > Where did the name 'dumb waiter' come from? Waite comes from a warrior who would wait up at nights patrolling city walls to watch for invading enemies to answer your question, not that its relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 18:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndh03m$hg$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380443 |
On 30.03.2016 00:09, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:24:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> On 29.03.2016 01:07, HGW wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:55:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>>> >>>> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge must be a masochist since he >>>> voluntarily chooses to remind us of the gigantic fool >>>> he made of himself back in 2013. >>>> >>>> A couple of facts: >>>> >>>> The asteroid 2012 DA14 was discovered >>>> February 23. 2012 by the La Sagra Sky Survey. >>>> >>>> After a mere 11 days of observations, NASA was >>>> able to give this prediction for the orbit, >>>> published March 6, 2012 >>>> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news174.html >>>> >>>> After another 11 months of continuous observations >>>> (>10 each day), the predictions had changed very little: >>>> >>>> Here is the prediction of the orbit published >>>> February 1, 2913 >>>> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news177.html >>>> << >>>> Asteroid 2012 DA14 will be closest to Earth on February 15, >>>> 2013 at about 19:24 GMT (2:24 p.m. EST or 11:24 a.m. PST), >>>> when it will be at a distance of about 27,700 kilometers >>>> (17,200 miles) above the Earth's surface. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> February 15, 2013 2012 DA14 passed the Earth: >>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0554v2 >>>> << >>>> February 15, 2013, at 19:26 UT. It passed at >>>> a distance of 27,700 km from the Earth’s surface >>>> >> >>>> >>>> The distance was almost exactly as predicted, and >>>> the time was only 2 minutes later than predicted. >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> In the morning February 15, 2013 a meteor hit Russia >>>> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/26feb_russianmeteor/ >>>> << >>>> Comparing the orbit of the Russian meteor to that of 2012 DA14, >>>> Cooke has shown that there is no connection between the two. >>>> "These are independent objects," he says. "The fact that they >>>> reached Earth on the same day, one just a little closer than >>>> the other, appears to be a complete coincidence." >>>> >> >>>> >>>> --------------------------- >>>> >>>> On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> | Asteroid 2012 DA14 is approaching Earth at about 0.00003c. >>>> | If NASA has based its trajectory forecasts on c instead of c+v, >>>> | they will have underestimated its current distance from Earth, >>>> | in which case gravity will bring it much closer to Earth than >>>> | expected. >>>> | >>>> | It might even hit the Earth. >>>> | >>>> | But don't panic folks....Einstein will save you. (: >>>> >>>> On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> | They have only been watching it for a short time you clueless fool. >>>> | They have only seen a small part of its orbit and have calculated >>>> | the rest on the basis that its light comes to Earth at c and not c+v. >>>> | >>>> | I wouldn't be at all surprised if the thing hits Earth half a day >>>> | early....around about New York. >>>> | >>>> | Learn some basic physics please before you utter even more of >>>> | your crap here.. >>>> >>>> Since we now know that NASA's prediction was spot on, while >>>> according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge it should have been wrong >>>> by half a day and 27,000 km if the ballistic theory was correct, >>>> we can only conclude that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >>>> the ballistic theory is wrong; DA14 falsifies the ballistic theory. >>>> >>>> >>>> When the meteor hit Russia, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge got an orgasm: >>>> >>>> On 2/15/2013 2:35 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>>> | Meteor my arse! That was the main part of Asteroid D14 >>>> | that hit Russia. >>>> | Didn't I forecast something like this? >>>> | All NASA's predictions were wrong because they were based >>>> | on c rather than c+v. This is a huge victory for ballistic >>>> | light. >>>> | .....but we will never be allowed to know the truth. >>>> | They will tell us the rest of it passed harmfully overhead >>>> | and went on its way. No arrogant astronomer is going to >>>> | admit to being wrong all his life...There will be a >>>> | massive cover up and the Einstein conspiracy will no doubt continue... >>>> >>>> On 2/15/2013 5:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>>> | Idiotic?????? >>>> | An asteroid is 'predicted' by Einstein to pass near Earth on the 15th. >>>> | A few hours before, a massive object slams into Russia, causing >>>> | enormous damage and shockwaves. Coincidence, eh? >>>> | >>>> | Bath predicted that NASA's estimates were wrong because >>>> | they used c instead of c+v. Why didn't they see the huge >>>> | bit that hit Russia? >>>> | >>>> | They did!!!!!!! But they were six hours and 26000 kms out. >>>> | >>>> | Diaper, you challenged me to stake my reputation on my >>>> | BaTh prediction. A big part of DA14 DID hit Earth. >>>> | Was I right or not? >>>> | >>>> | How does my reputation look now, eh? >>>> >>>> How indeed! >>>> >>>> When it finally dawned to Ralph that the asteroid that hit Russia >>>> came from a quite different direction than DA14, he found >>>> it necessary to explain how it could change direction: >>>> >>>> On 21.02.2013 11:12, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>>> | >>>> | Paul, let me explain. >>>> | >>>> | Maybe you have never been a sportsman but you still should be aware that if >>>> | a ball is thrown with lots of spin, it will curve quite dramatically through >>>> | the air. A sliced golf ball, for instance, might change direction by 30 >>>> | degrees in a few seconds over 100 metres. Similarly, a parachutist can >>>> | easily alter his direction of movement by manipulating the angle of his >>>> | chute. A glider is very manoeuverable through the air by nature of its wings >>>> | and tail deflectors. >>>> | >>>> | Imagine what might happen when a rapidly spinning, irregularly shaped, 20000 >>>> | tonne lump of rock enters the Earth's atmosphere at mach 10 !!!! Air has a >>>> | density of 1.3 kilogram/m3 at sea level. Even in the upper atmosphere, it is >>>> | dense enough to exert huge forces on any intruding object. The creation of >>>> | intense shockwaves will naturally be accompanied by intense reactive forces >>>> | between the air and the creator. While falling 100 kms at a low angle, any >>>> | object will likely follow a very erratic path. >>>> | >>>> | It is highly improbable, therefore, that any Asteroid in our solar system >>>> | is perfectly spherical and devoid of an amount of angular velocity. On >>>> | entering Earth's atmosphere, as well as making a very loud noise, a typical >>>> | asteroid will undoubtedly change course many times...possibly even going >>>> | around in circles.... before it crashes into a frozen lake from a direction >>>> | very different from its riginal one outside the earth's atmosphere. >>>> | >>>> | Have you now got the picture?.... or would you like me to go on? >>>> >>>> Sure, I have got the picture. >>>> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge would rather insist that a 10 000 ton >>>> asteroid going at 50+ MACH is moving in circles in the atmosphere, >>>> than admit what the rest of the world know: >>>> The meteor that hit Russia and the asteroid 2012 DA14 >>>> are not related. Their orbits were very different. > > > HAAHAHAHHAHA! Yes Paul, we have heard all that before. Indeed we have heard your unbelievable stupid claim that 2012 DA14 moved in circles in the atmosphere before it hit Russia before. Does that make your claim any less stupid? :-D >> But down under in Wonderland the 10 000 ton asteroid >> keep moving in circles in the atmosphere to fulfil >> the predictions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge. >> >>> Note, Paul B. will do anything to avoid having to admit that my forecast of an >>> unexpected event that day was right...and it happened because the observers >>> used c instead of c+v. >>> >> >> Quite. >> Paul will even do the dirty trick of stating the facts! :-D > > From what I read NASA had very little direct interest. Rather it obtained the > path details from some dingleberry in Spain. ..who also used c rather than c+v. You are mumbling.. Were you trying to say something, Ralph? :-) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 07:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ndhcuo$pt7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380505 |
On 31/03/16 03:49, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.03.2016 00:09, HGW wrote: >>> But down under in Wonderland the 10 000 ton asteroid >>> keep moving in circles in the atmosphere to fulfil >>> the predictions of Henry George Wilson. >>> >>>> Note, Paul B. will do anything to avoid having to admit that my >>>> forecast of an >>>> unexpected event that day was right...and it happened because the >>>> observers >>>> used c instead of c+v. >>>> >>> >>> Quite. >>> Paul will even do the dirty trick of stating the facts! :-D >> >> From what I read NASA had very little direct interest. Rather it >> obtained the >> path details from some dingleberry in Spain. ..who also used c rather >> than c+v. > > You are mumbling.. > Were you trying to say something, Henry? :-) The only thing I need to say is that I predicted something unexpected would happen on that fatal day. WAS I RIGHT PAUL?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 20:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndjp2a$80r$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380522 |
On 30.03.2016 22:29, HGW wrote:
>
> The only thing I need to say is that I predicted something unexpected
> would happen on that fatal day. WAS I RIGHT PAUL?
No, you didn't predict that 'something unexpected' like
'a meteor will hit Russia', would happen.
You quite specifically predicted that 2012 DA14 would hit
the Earth around New York half a day earlier than predicted
by NASA, and no matter of much you repeat the claim to have
predicted 'something unexpected', you never predicted anything
else than that 2012 DA14 would hit the Earth.
On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote:
| Asteroid 2012 DA14 is approaching Earth at about 0.00003c.
| If NASA has based its trajectory forecasts on c instead of c+v,
| they will have underestimated its current distance from Earth,
| in which case gravity will bring it much closer to Earth than
| expected.
|
| It might even hit the Earth.
|
| But don't panic folks....Einstein will save you. (:
On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote:
| They have only been watching it for a short time you clueless fool.
| They have only seen a small part of its orbit and have calculated
| the rest on the basis that its light comes to Earth at c and not c+v.
|
| I wouldn't be at all surprised if the thing hits Earth half a day
| early....around about New York.
|
| Learn some basic physics please before you utter even more of
| your crap here..
Here is the prediction of the orbit published by NASA
February 1, 2913
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news177.html
<<
Asteroid 2012 DA14 will be closest to Earth on February 15,
2013 at about 19:24 GMT (2:24 p.m. EST or 11:24 a.m. PST),
when it will be at a distance of about 27,700 kilometers
(17,200 miles) above the Earth's surface.
>>
February 15, 2013 2012 DA14 passed the Earth:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0554v2
<<
February 15, 2013, at 19:26 UT. It passed at
a distance of 27,700 km from the Earth’s surface
>>
Since we now know that NASA's prediction was spot on, while
according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge it should have been wrong
by half a day and 27,000 km if the ballistic theory was correct,
we can only conclude that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge
the ballistic theory is wrong; DA14 falsifies the ballistic theory.
--------------------
BTW, Ralph.
Is there any particular reason why you have failed
to answer this question?
Do you still claim that NASA had the power to fake all
the observations of the passing of 2012 DA14 made by
all the observatories that observed it?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 09:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <isulfb9shcf3ralvnlt8d8250oed8htqq7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380323 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:55:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 28.03.2016 00:13, HGW wrote: >> >> By the way, a similar argument applies to that asteroid that crashed into >> Russia about 12 hours before predicted.... Because they used c instead of c+v, >> they always underestimated its proximity. >> >> I was the only person in the world who predicted an unexpected event that day. >> Was I right? I even wagered the reputation of BaTh on it with Paul B. He still >> hasn't paid me for it. HAHAHHHAHHAHHAHHHA!!!!! Just listen to the ratpack howling!!!!! The fact that I predicted an unusual eventn the same day wont go away no matter how much you lot scream and yell. It happened just as I said it would. BaTh is victorious yet again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndh1ec$3dr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380442 |
On 30.03.2016 00:05, HGW wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:55:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28.03.2016 00:13, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> By the way, a similar argument applies to that asteroid that crashed into
>>> Russia about 12 hours before predicted.... Because they used c instead of c+v,
>>> they always underestimated its proximity.
>>>
>>> I was the only person in the world who predicted an unexpected event that day.
>>> Was I right? I even wagered the reputation of BaTh on it with Paul B. He still
>>> hasn't paid me for it.
>
> HAHAHHHAHHAHHAHHHA!!!!! Just listen to the ratpack howling!!!!!
>
So why did you have to snip 'the howling of the ratpack'?
Didn't you like the facts the ratpack howled?
>
> The fact that I predicted an unusual eventn the same day wont go away no matter
> how much you lot scream and yell.
> It happened just as I said it would.
The fact is that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson
predicted that 2012 DA14 would hit the Earth around New York
half a day earlier than predicted by NASA, and no matter
of much he repeats the claim to have predicted 'an unusual event'
he never predicted anything else than that 2012 DA14 would
hit the Earth.
On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote:
| Asteroid 2012 DA14 is approaching Earth at about 0.00003c.
| If NASA has based its trajectory forecasts on c instead of c+v,
| they will have underestimated its current distance from Earth,
| in which case gravity will bring it much closer to Earth than
| expected.
|
| It might even hit the Earth.
|
| But don't panic folks....Einstein will save you. (:
On 2/8/2013, Henry Wilson wrote:
| They have only been watching it for a short time you clueless fool.
| They have only seen a small part of its orbit and have calculated
| the rest on the basis that its light comes to Earth at c and not c+v.
|
| I wouldn't be at all surprised if the thing hits Earth half a day
| early....around about New York.
|
| Learn some basic physics please before you utter even more of
| your crap here..
The fact is:
Here is the prediction of the orbit published
February 1, 2913
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news177.html
<<
Asteroid 2012 DA14 will be closest to Earth on February 15,
2013 at about 19:24 GMT (2:24 p.m. EST or 11:24 a.m. PST),
when it will be at a distance of about 27,700 kilometers
(17,200 miles) above the Earth's surface.
>>
February 15, 2013 2012 DA14 passed the Earth:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0554v2
<<
February 15, 2013, at 19:26 UT. It passed at
a distance of 27,700 km from the Earth’s surface
>>
The distance was almost exactly as predicted, and
the time was only 2 minutes later than predicted.
Since we now know that NASA's prediction was spot on, while
according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge it should have been wrong
by half a day and 27,000 km if the ballistic theory was correct,
we can only conclude that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge
the ballistic theory is wrong; DA14 falsifies the ballistic theory.
So:
>
> BaTh is victorious yet again.
>
:-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 08:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <96ptfbp0dl99pineeahd7t136ltnsll5ge@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380507 |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:12:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >February 15, 2013 2012 DA14 passed the Earth: >http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0554v2 > << > February 15, 2013, at 19:26 UT. It passed at > a distance of 27,700 km from the Earth’s surface > >> > >The distance was almost exactly as predicted, and >the time was only 2 minutes later than predicted. > >Since we now know that NASA's prediction was spot on, while >according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge it should have been wrong >by half a day and 27,000 km if the ballistic theory was correct, >we can only conclude that according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >the ballistic theory is wrong; DA14 falsifies the ballistic theory. > >So: Wrigle, wriggle, scream and niggle... Wilson loves to watch and giggle....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 15:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndoh63$5nb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380687 |
On 01.04.2016 23:19, HGW wrote: > > Wrigle, wriggle, scream and niggle... > Wilson loves to watch and giggle.... This is not posted by Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson. To whoever posted this: This is fraud! Don't do it! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndohge$1ckb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380746 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 01.04.2016 23:19, HGW wrote: >> >> Wrigle, wriggle, scream and niggle... >> Wilson loves to watch and giggle.... > > This is not posted by Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson. > To whoever posted this: This is fraud! Don't do it! Learn physics, my friend. Before attacking Wilson and everybody else. Let's see whether you are able to write down the correct wave equation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46c35555-b44c-4942-b2a6-d102d1cdb097@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379636 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 4:12:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > > >On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> HGW <hw@...> writes: > > >> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd > >> rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too > >> chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know what to do with > >> the data even if you did have it. > > >Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. > > Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers > confounded. > > Explain that, Ralph. Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos", > explain it in Newtonian mechanics. > > You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that > $250. Thinking it over, Henry probably can find ways of getting a copy of the data for far less than it would cost to do so through me. I charge $50/hr because that is my going rate for my professional services. But university libraries have copy centers which run off paper copies for a very nominal rate. The last time I used their services for paper copies, it was ten cents per page. This is because they hire people who are not paid anywhere near as much as I do. Just remember that it takes somewhat longer to scan a page to make a soft copy than it does to run off a photocopy. Even so, I would not be surprised if they could scan electronic copies for you for, say, twenty-five cents a page. University copy centers usually have posted policies that they will not run off complete books, because this would, in most cases, be a violation of "fair use" policies. But if Henry explains to them that 1) this is a publication of a U.S. Government agency 2) Section 7 of the Copyright Act of 1909 provides that "No copyright shall subsist ... in any publication of the United States Government, or any reprint, in whole or in part, thereof: ...." 3) he lives in Australia then I would not be surprised if they would make an exception, and Henry could be getting the scan for (I would estimate) between $60 and $100 dollars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncni3v$1gq0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379644 |
On 21/03/16 10:11, Caspase riddled Homo wrote: "I just want to remind the world that prokaryotes have no brains".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncnjmt$s70$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #379644 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes: >Thinking it over, Henry probably can find ways of getting a copy of the data for >far less than it would cost to do so through me. Probably. But he's too lazy to do it himself, assuming there is a copy in Oz, or to try to find someone else to locate and copy it cheaper. Not that he would, since he knows the data would prove Einstein correct if he knew what to do with the data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0336d3ef-959b-4bd9-a008-e3680c276fb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379624 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: > > HGW <hw@...> writes: > > > > > Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd > > rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too > > chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know what to do with > > the data even if you did have it. > > Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. The > hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list of > fraudulent claims Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons for your delusions is found in the second half of this sentence: > intended to promote the name Einstein as the world > symbol of genius. Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side of all losers who in their minds never amounted to anything, and now can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from yelling dumb anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. > All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is > completely wrong anyway.... Bwahaha! Like you'd be able to tell the difference! And all this from a guy who cannot even SET UP (let alone solve) a simple classical mechanics problem in ONE degree of freedom that I asked him MONTHS ago. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <add1aaab-a490-4d14-8590-f2bf14cf0680@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379668 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. > > The hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list > > of fraudulent claims > > Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons > for your delusions is found in the second half of this sentence: You need to let experimental observations to decide on this not the mystical claim by Jan the relativistic moron who cannot even understand the Lagrangian method which is the central theme of GR. How sickening! <shrug> > > intended to promote the name Einstein as the world symbol of > > genius. > > Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side > of all losers who in their minds never amounted to anything, and > now can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from yelling dumb > anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. Jan the relativistic moron needs to understand that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was a nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a moron. <shrug> > > All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is completely > > wrong anyway.... > > Bwahaha! Mr. Wilson is completely right again. <shrug> > Like you'd be able to tell the difference! Gee! It is the idiot like Jan the relativistic moron who cannot understand the differences between Larmor's and the Lorentz transforms in the first place. Get lost, Jan. You don't know anything. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 20:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncoet9$ot4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379668 |
On 21/03/16 16:50, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >> On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> HGW <hw@...> writes: >> >>> >>> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. >>> You'd rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's >>> orbit is too chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know >>> what to do with the data even if you did have it. >> >> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. >> The hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list >> of fraudulent claims > > Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons for > your delusions is found in the second half of this sentence: > >> intended to promote the name Einstein as the world symbol of >> genius. > > Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side > of all losers who in their minds never amounted to anything, and now > can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from yelling dumb > anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. Rubbish! I have praised Einstein many times. He would have made a wonderful used car salesman... >> All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is completely >> wrong anyway.... > > Bwahaha! Like you'd be able to tell the difference! And all this from > a guy who cannot even SET UP (let alone solve) a simple classical > mechanics problem in ONE degree of freedom that I asked him MONTHS > ago. HAHAHAHHA! Do you mean the one you copied from Wikipedia....I could copy the answer too if I wanted to. > -- Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0a9e6c2-1f07-4e10-ac23-b324647216c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379677 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 2:29:19 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 21/03/16 16:50, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > >> On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> HGW <hw@...> writes: > >> > >>> > >>> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. > >>> You'd rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's > >>> orbit is too chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!" And you wouldn't know > >>> what to do with the data even if you did have it. > >> > >> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. > >> The hoax about its precession is just one example in a long list > >> of fraudulent claims > > > > Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons for > > your delusions is found in the second half of this sentence: > > > >> intended to promote the name Einstein as the world symbol of > >> genius. > > > > Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side > > of all losers who in their minds never amounted to anything, and now > > can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from yelling dumb > > anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. > > Rubbish! I have praised Einstein many times. He would have made a > wonderful used car salesman... Bingo again. > >> All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is completely > >> wrong anyway.... > > > > Bwahaha! Like you'd be able to tell the difference! And all this from > > a guy who cannot even SET UP (let alone solve) a simple classical > > mechanics problem in ONE degree of freedom that I asked him MONTHS > > ago. > > HAHAHAHHA! Do you mean the one you copied from Wikipedia.... I didn't copy it from Wikipedia. > I could copy > the answer too if I wanted to. No, you couldn't copy it from Wikipedia. The answer is not there. That's the reason I asked you a question which isn't copied from anywhere. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 03:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62dc963e-4044-4a93-8611-d5eb15ac592b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379668 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 06:50:16 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons for your delusions is > found in the second half of this sentence: > > > intended to promote the name Einstein as the world > > symbol of genius. > > Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side of all losers who in their > minds never amounted to anything, and now can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from > yelling dumb anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. Well, there are many insany crazies in the world we inhabit. No problem, that Einstein was one of them. Problem, that morons like you are stupid enough to worship him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5cf46fd-0081-4f0e-8606-41cce3dd261c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379679 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 3:19:49 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 06:50:16 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > Patent nonsense. But the very obvious clue explaining the reasons for your delusions is > > found in the second half of this sentence: > > > > > intended to promote the name Einstein as the world > > > symbol of genius. > > > > Bingo! Here we can see the real agenda: the usual thorn in the side of all losers who in their > > minds never amounted to anything, and now can only get a few pitiful quasi-orgasms from > > yelling dumb anti-Einstein slogans on the Internet. > > Well, there are many insany crazies in the world > we inhabit. No problem, that Einstein was one of > them. Problem, that morons like you are stupid > enough to worship him. Bingo as well. The readers will note that for the cranks it's _invariably_ all about "fame", "worshipping", and the like(*), never about the science which they are unable to discuss anyway. All of their technical arguments are bogus. Let me stress this one more time: _all of their arguments against relativity_ are either _not even wrong_ or, at best, merely _incorrect_. I am not aware of any exception to this since this newsgroup's inception around 1996 (I forget the exact year). The claims of "worshipping" are of course ludicrous and merely designed to make their opponents look foolish. It's a standard rhetorical device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Posts from Henry, Pentcho, Maciej, and many others around here are good only for entertainment (which is the only reason I hang around here). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 20:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncpgf5$cdl$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379714 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e5cf46fd-0081-4f0e-8606-41cce3dd261c@googlegroups.com... |Bingo as well. The readers will note that for the cranks it's _invariably_ |all about "fame", "worshipping", and the like(*), never about the science |which they are unable to discuss anyway. All of their technical arguments |are bogus. Let me stress this one more time: _all of their arguments |against relativity_ are either _not even wrong_ or, at best, merely |_incorrect_. |I am not aware of any exception to this since this newsgroup's inception |around 1996 (I forget the exact year). The readers will note that for relativistic morons: it's _invariably_ all about fame", "worshipping", and the like(*), never about the science which they are unable to discuss anyway. All of their technical arguments are bogus. Let me stress this one more time: _all of their arguments against opponents are either "not even wrong!!!" or, at best, merely "irrelvant!!!" The claims like above are of course ludicrous and merely designed to make their opponents look foolish. It's a standard rhetorical device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Posts from Jan, Tom, Gary and many others around here are not good even for entertainment. There is really no reason to treat them seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f19419e5-d7fb-4e10-a773-597a3522d998@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379716 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:02:00 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:e5cf46fd-0081-4f0e-8606-41cce3dd261c@googlegroups.com... > > |Bingo as well. The readers will note that for the cranks it's _invariably_ > |all about "fame", "worshipping", and the like(*), never about the science > |which they are unable to discuss anyway. All of their technical arguments > |are bogus. Let me stress this one more time: _all of their arguments > |against relativity_ are either _not even wrong_ or, at best, merely > |_incorrect_. > |I am not aware of any exception to this since this newsgroup's inception > |around 1996 (I forget the exact year). > > The readers will note that for relativistic morons: it's _invariably_ all > about > fame", "worshipping", and the like(*), never about the science > which they are unable to discuss anyway. All of their technical arguments > are bogus. Let me stress this one more time: _all of their arguments > against opponents are either "not even wrong!!!" or, at best, merely > "irrelvant!!!" > > > The claims like above are of course ludicrous and merely designed > to make their opponents look foolish. It's a standard rhetorical device: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > Posts from Jan, Tom, Gary and many others around here are not good > even for entertainment. There is really no reason to treat them > seriously. Really? Then how come you are never able to answer simple questions about the stuff you criticise? Would you trust a lawyer who never studied law? Would you trust a doctor who never went to school? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web