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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0f934de-8c25-47d7-979a-8a879588b67d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380048 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:11:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@...> writes: > > >On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted: > > >..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute. > > Ralph, why won't you get the Mercury data to show us how "it's obvious" > its orbit is Newtonian? You keep whining "it's obvious", but without any > data it can't be obvious. > > For a mere $250 investment, you can prove GR wrong. That will surely > produce a Nobel Prize in Physics in the name of Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, > Wouldn't you like Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge to be listed right next to > Newton and Galileo as one of the greats of science? Better yet, Henry should get the FREE, publicly accessible data from the NASA MESSENGER probe. On March 18, 2011, the NASA MESSENGER probe entered orbit around Mercury. From then until April, 2015, the probe provided ranging data that enabled determining the position of Mercury to within several meters. Nowadays, spacecraft range measurements, when available, provide the most accurate data used for constructing planetary ephemerides. In particular, the high-precision radioscience observations provided by this mission offered an opportunity to perform sensitive relativistic tests of unprecedented accuracy: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 Complete data for all of the science instruments for the MESSENGER mission are available here: http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/messenger/ Software for analysis of this data is available from Geodesie par Integrations Numeriques Simultanees: http://grgs.obs-mip.fr/recherche/logiciels This is practically UNFAKEABLE data, Henry! It would take a fraudulent conspiracy of the highest order to manipulate the data so that it adheres to Einsteinian expectations when it is really Newtonian! This is the opportunity of a lifetime, which you, as the foremost physicist in the world and an expert programmer and specialist in celestial mechanics, should grab to reveal the TRUTH about relativity!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 08:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nd1nva$6je$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380090 |
On 25/03/16 07:14, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:11:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@...> writes: >> >>> On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted: >> >>> ..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute. >> >> Ralph, why won't you get the Mercury data to show us how "it's obvious" >> its orbit is Newtonian? You keep whining "it's obvious", but without any >> data it can't be obvious. >> >> For a mere $250 investment, you can prove GR wrong. That will surely >> produce a Nobel Prize in Physics in the name of Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, >> Wouldn't you like Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge to be listed right next to >> Newton and Galileo as one of the greats of science? > > Better yet, Henry should get the FREE, publicly accessible data from the NASA > MESSENGER probe. > > On March 18, 2011, the NASA MESSENGER probe entered orbit around Mercury. From > then until April, 2015, the probe provided ranging data that enabled determining > the position of Mercury to within several meters. Nowadays, spacecraft range > measurements, when available, provide the most accurate data used for > constructing planetary ephemerides. > > In particular, the high-precision radioscience observations provided by this > mission offered an opportunity to perform sensitive relativistic tests of > unprecedented accuracy: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 > > Complete data for all of the science instruments for the MESSENGER mission are > available here: http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/messenger/ Software > for analysis of this data is available from Geodesie par Integrations > Numeriques Simultanees: http://grgs.obs-mip.fr/recherche/logiciels > > This is practically UNFAKEABLE data, Henry! It would take a fraudulent > conspiracy of the highest order to manipulate the data so that it adheres to > Einsteinian expectations when it is really Newtonian! This is the opportunity > of a lifetime, which you, as the foremost physicist in the world and an expert > programmer and specialist in celestial mechanics, should grab to reveal the > TRUTH about relativity! All astronomical data that uses constant light speed is wrong. End of story. Q) Incidentally, why did the first two Mars probes crash? A) Because c was used to position them rather than c-v! When NASA woke up, they used local radar instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2cf0e2d7-e108-440a-8708-bc4e158434fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380098 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:59:11 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > All astronomical data that uses constant light speed is wrong. > End of story. :-))))))) > Q) Incidentally, why did the first two Mars probes crash? > A) Because c was used to position them rather than c-v! Wrong. One of them crashed because English units were put in when the probe was expecting MKS units: > When NASA woke up, they used local radar instead. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/index.html?_s=PM:TECH The Mars Polar Lander crashed because the engine turned off too soon. If the problem was due to c + v or c - v nonsense, the probe wouldn't even have made it to Mars. You should really stop telling lies. "Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion." - Thornton Wilder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 14:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nd516n$16sa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380102 |
On 25/03/2016 9:52 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:59:11 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> All astronomical data that uses constant light speed is wrong. >> End of story. > > :-))))))) > >> Q) Incidentally, why did the first two Mars probes crash? >> A) Because c was used to position them rather than c-v! > > Wrong. One of them crashed because English units were put in when the > probe was expecting MKS units: > >> When NASA woke up, they used local radar instead. > > http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/index.html?_s=PM:TECH > > The Mars Polar Lander crashed because the engine turned off too soon. > If the problem was due to c + v or c - v nonsense, the probe wouldn't > even have made it to Mars. That's what an amateur would think. Assume the probe and ground clocks are synchronized. Let the probe send a time signal to Earth at To when its true distance is Do. It is received when the Earth clock reads T1. The question is, what is the probes true distance, Dr, at that instant. Let the difference between clock readings be T. When calculated using light speed c: T=Do/c Dr = Do+vT = Do(1+v/c) = Do(c+v)/c....................1 When calculated using c-v: T= Do/(c-v) Dr = Do + vT = Do(1+ v/(c-v)) = Do(c/(c-v))...........2 Is 1 bigger than 2 as you claim? Subtract 2 from 1. Do[c+v)/c - c/(c-v)] = Do[c^2-v^2-c^2]/(c(c-v) = -v^2 /() which is always negative. So the probe is always further than base believes. That is the real reason for the crashes...but naturally NASA would never admit to that because it is run by dingleberries. > > You should really stop telling lies. > > "Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the > rest of us are in great danger of contagion." - Thornton Wilder >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9428dd51-7523-4638-9a53-86b5a6b889d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380170 |
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:55:09 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 25/03/2016 9:52 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:59:11 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > All astronomical data that uses constant light speed is wrong. > > > End of story. > > > > :-))))))) > > > > > Q) Incidentally, why did the first two Mars probes crash? > > > A) Because c was used to position them rather than c-v! > > > > Wrong. One of them crashed because English units were put in when the > > probe was expecting MKS units: > > > > > When NASA woke up, they used local radar instead. > > > > http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/index.html?_s=PM:TECH > > > > The Mars Polar Lander crashed because the engine turned off too soon. > > If the problem was due to c + v or c - v nonsense, the probe wouldn't > > even have made it to Mars. > > That's what an amateur would think. Dismissal of the messenger is tantamount to troll behavior. > Assume the probe and ground clocks are synchronized. Let the probe send > a time signal to Earth at To when its true distance is Do. It is > received when the Earth clock reads T1. The question is, what is the > probes true distance, Dr, at that instant. > > Let the difference between clock readings be T. > When calculated using light speed c: > T=Do/c > Dr = Do+vT = Do(1+v/c) = Do(c+v)/c....................1 > > When calculated using c-v: > T= Do/(c-v) > Dr = Do + vT = Do(1+ v/(c-v)) = Do(c/(c-v))...........2 > > Is 1 bigger than 2 as you claim? Subtract 2 from 1. > Do[c+v)/c - c/(c-v)] = Do[c^2-v^2-c^2]/(c(c-v) = -v^2 /() which is > always negative. > > So the probe is always further than base believes. > > That is the real reason for the crashes...but naturally NASA would never > admit to that because it is run by dingleberries. If your misanalysis were correct, ALL of the probes would have crashed. And, BTW, they ALL had radar altimeters, even the Viking landers: http://historicspacecraft.com/Probes_Mars.html#Viking > > You should really stop telling lies. > > > > "Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the > > rest of us are in great danger of contagion." - Thornton Wilder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 10:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <js5efb9s9pd2vsctp66k5fhbk8mrmd5tnc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380202 |
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:55:09 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> > The Mars Polar Lander crashed because the engine turned off too soon. >> > If the problem was due to c + v or c - v nonsense, the probe wouldn't >> > even have made it to Mars. >> >> That's what an amateur would think. > >Dismissal of the messenger is tantamount to troll behavior. > >> Assume the probe and ground clocks are synchronized. Let the probe send >> a time signal to Earth at To when its true distance is Do. It is >> received when the Earth clock reads T1. The question is, what is the >> probes true distance, Dr, at that instant. >> >> Let the difference between clock readings be T. >> When calculated using light speed c: >> T=Do/c >> Dr = Do+vT = Do(1+v/c) = Do(c+v)/c....................1 >> >> When calculated using c-v: >> T= Do/(c-v) >> Dr = Do + vT = Do(1+ v/(c-v)) = Do(c/(c-v))...........2 >> >> Is 1 bigger than 2 as you claim? Subtract 2 from 1. >> Do[c+v)/c - c/(c-v)] = Do[c^2-v^2-c^2]/(c(c-v) = -v^2 /() which is >> always negative. >> >> So the probe is always further than base believes. >> >> That is the real reason for the crashes...but naturally NASA would never >> admit to that because it is run by dingleberries. > >If your misanalysis were correct, ALL of the probes would have crashed. What do you mean, IF? Can't you even understand simple maths? My analysis is quite correct. >And, BTW, they ALL had radar altimeters, even the Viking landers: > >http://historicspacecraft.com/Probes_Mars.html#Viking Again they should be using c+v but it doesn't much matter because as they get closer, the error disappears.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d65e84ce-ed4f-49a7-9484-bfb42dda002b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380227 |
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:16:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:55:09 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > So the probe is always further than base believes. > > > > > > That is the real reason for the crashes...but naturally NASA would never > > > admit to that because it is run by dingleberries. > > > > If your misanalysis were correct, ALL of the probes would have crashed. > > What do you mean, IF? Can't you even understand simple maths? Yes, I do. I also understand simple as well as complex experimental evidence, which is why your math is not applicable. > My analysis is quite correct. But your assumption of ballistic theory is wrong. > > And, BTW, they ALL had radar altimeters, even the Viking landers: > > > > http://historicspacecraft.com/Probes_Mars.html#Viking > > Again they should be using c+v but it doesn't much matter because as they > get closer, the error disappears. So NONE of the landers should have crashed since they ALL had radar. You have just refuted your own assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 09:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ndmgfb1cblpuvnjq77r20upmo46ct0l644@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380256 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 05:50:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:16:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> > And, BTW, they ALL had radar altimeters, even the Viking landers: >> > >> > http://historicspacecraft.com/Probes_Mars.html#Viking >> >> Again they should be using c+v but it doesn't much matter because as they >> get closer, the error disappears. > >So NONE of the landers should have crashed since they ALL had radar. You >have just refuted your own assertion. No, they turned on the radar too late...or its range was too short. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <475ae3f0-bf86-4ca9-975c-c41bae3b8776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380292 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 05:50:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:16:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Again they should be using c+v but it doesn't much matter because as they > > > get closer, the error disappears. > > > > So NONE of the landers should have crashed since they ALL had radar. You > > have just refuted your own assertion. > > No, they turned on the radar too late...or its range was too short. Completely unsubstantiated and stupid assertions. > 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. It wasn't the same asteroid, sophistry-monger. We've gone over this ad nauseam and the asteroid projected to miss actually did miss. Please stop the recurring stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 12:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndb6e0$o9c$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380306 |
Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> I was the only person in the world who predicted an unexpected event that day. >> Was I right? I even wagered the reputation of BaTh on it with Paul B. He still >> hasn't paid me for it. >It wasn't the same asteroid, sophistry-monger. We've gone over this ad >nauseam and the asteroid projected to miss actually did miss. Please stop >the recurring stupidity. If I remember correctly, Ralph, the two asteroids even approached Earth from completely different directions. Explain that, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 10:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <kqdjfbdu4aq97lp3fcmvv8383htgqnoetv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380319 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:01:04 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: > >>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:13:14 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > >>> I was the only person in the world who predicted an unexpected event that day. >>> Was I right? I even wagered the reputation of BaTh on it with Paul B. He still >>> hasn't paid me for it. > >>It wasn't the same asteroid, sophistry-monger. We've gone over this ad >>nauseam and the asteroid projected to miss actually did miss. Please stop >>the recurring stupidity. > >If I remember correctly, Henry, the two asteroids even approached Earth >from completely different directions. Explain that, Henry. Moron-y, quite obviously NASA is no going to admit it made a gigantic blunder. If it did, people would be shit scared whenever an asteroid was anywhere near Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 12:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nddjst$gja$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380392 |
On 29.03.2016 01:01, HGW wrote:
>
> Moron-y, quite obviously NASA is no going to admit it made a gigantic blunder.
> If it did, people would be shit scared whenever an asteroid was anywhere near
> Earth.
Ralph, look at this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0554v2
It is about the observations of 2012 DA14 made by
the following observatories:
The 10.4m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) on La Palma
The 3.6m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) on La Palma
The 2.2m CAHA telescope in the Calar Alto Observatory (Almeria)
The f/3 0.77m telescope in the La Hita Observatory (Toledo)
The f/8 1.5m telescope in the Sierra Nevada Observatory (OSN, Granada)
The observations were:
<<
February 15, 2013, at 19:26 UT. 2012 DA14 passed at
a distance of 27,700 km from the Earth’s surface
>>
Do you seriously think that NASA had the power to fake
the observations from these European observatories?
NASA's predictions were:
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.
>>
They could not be more spot on.
So unless the observations of the observatories mentioned above,
and a lot of other observatories that were on the correct side
of the Earth to observe the passing all were faked, NASA's
predictions for DA14 were spot on, which according to
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge must imply that the speed
of light relative to the Earth is c and not c+v.
So, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, I ask you again:
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?
Make my day, answer "yes".
But you will have to snip and flee, won't you?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nde23a$n91$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380392 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:01:04 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com >(Michael Moroney) wrote: >>If I remember correctly, Henry, the two asteroids even approached Earth >>from completely different directions. Explain that, Henry. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you did it again! Ralph, do you take stupid pills or something, Ralph? Ralph, why haven't you learned that doing that just encourages me to make posts like this one, Ralph, which really must piss you off, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, I think I am right about you taking stupid pills. It would explain believing in BATHwater in spite of all the evidence against it. Now, that is really stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b98ba34e-f5e9-4d97-a43f-b6a8f9854ebc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380392 |
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 5:01:52 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:01:04 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com > (Michael Moroney) wrote: > > > > If I remember correctly, Henry, the two asteroids even approached Earth > > from completely different directions. Explain that, Henry. > > Moron-y, quite obviously NASA is no going to admit it made a gigantic blunder. Much more likely (by about six orders of magnitude) is that Ralphie-boy is NEVER going to admit that his stupid BathWater is dead wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 15:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndbd45$c6u$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380292 |
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.
>
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. :-D
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! :-D
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.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 10:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <1vdjfbhp2gtnb11p0igf85r8vop2ckglme@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380323 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:55:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: ....a lot of conspirational stuff that we all know about. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 11:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nddhko$chp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380394 |
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. 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 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 09:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <23vlfbheqs1obf6qaq6u6oe250ge9cep1u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380411 |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:24:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 29.03.2016 01:07, HGW wrote: >>> Sure, I have got the picture. >>> Henry George Wilson 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. >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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 02:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b85f683-a525-438e-b06f-4ae15f4ab0df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380443 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:09:09 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:24:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > > >On 29.03.2016 01:07, HGW wrote: > > >>> Sure, I have got the picture. > >>> Henry George Wilson 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. > > >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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 20:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ndg7gr$nii$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380469 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web