Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #378322 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 14:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 19:31 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 12:57 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 14:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 04:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:16 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 11:09 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:19 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 03:52 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 20:29 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 15:44 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 19:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:37 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-13 08:13 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-12 14:46 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:53 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-12 17:10 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 18:22 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 21:00 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:32 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 13:34 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:31 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 19:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 04:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 18:34 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:26 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 05:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 05:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-17 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:10 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 19:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:42 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 10:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 12:04 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:22 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-13 09:09 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 09:23 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:49 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 04:55 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 21:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:34 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 12:41 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:31 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 05:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 10:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:46 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 20:52 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 19:56 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:55 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:08 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 18:19 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 08:55 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 18:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 22:19 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:01 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 13:51 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 14:13 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 09:48 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 16:05 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 17:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 11:48 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 14:16 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:52 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 06:51 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-10 23:08 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-11 07:11 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 10:32 -0600
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 21:16 -0800
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-11 20:02 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 19:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 11:40 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:10 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 12:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:34 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:39 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:36 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:01 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:14 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 13:51 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 14:24 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 10:33 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-16 03:54 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 19:51 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:07 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:12 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:04 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:51 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:48 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 21:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 21:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 05:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:43 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:23 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 09:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:49 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:45 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 07:30 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-18 17:01 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:09 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:39 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:39 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:53 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-18 17:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:05 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:28 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 20:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-19 17:58 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:57 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:26 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-22 20:04 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-23 10:15 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 19:22 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:24 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 06:24 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 17:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 18:17 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-23 19:18 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:45 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 20:36 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:59 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 20:45 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 19:57 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 05:50 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 08:00 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 15:41 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:50 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 06:19 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-28 09:14 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 20:54 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-28 04:38 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:09 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-29 04:50 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 11:03 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:12 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-30 08:55 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:22 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:24 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-31 07:44 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-31 19:37 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 08:21 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 21:28 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-01 20:15 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 18:59 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:04 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:07 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 10:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:15 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 10:14 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:22 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:28 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:48 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 14:39 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 13:05 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 10:23 +1000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 22:00 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:23 +1000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:33 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 00:02 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 13:25 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-03 08:16 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:47 +1000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-04 19:36 +0200
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:54 +1000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 08:49 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 11:57 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-23 13:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:05 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:18 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:35 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-18 05:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:41 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:41 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 10:33 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 11:44 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-17 12:56 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-17 15:05 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 23:18 -0400
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-18 10:06 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 13:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 11:59 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-16 12:45 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:26 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 06:13 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:53 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 02:58 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 14:29 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:17 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 20:49 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-14 11:35 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:17 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 07:23 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 21:47 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:00 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:19 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 09:33 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:11 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:47 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-14 21:02 +1100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 05:51 -0700
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:32 -0500
Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0100
Re: Differences between LET and SR. Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:39 +0000
Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-13 18:45 +1100
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 09:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncv6jg$1s9i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379953 |
On 24/03/16 04:43, David Waite wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:27:08 AM UTC-7, David Waite > wrote: > >>> Imagination, of course, as expected from a relativistic trash. I >>> didn't confest anything, and poor idiot Gary was not talking to >>> me. But, right. Your insane guru was able to support this idiocy >>> about speed of light only locally; considering your "standards" - >>> locally it's just a tautology. >> >> So it didn't occur to me that you weren't the same crank that he >> was talking to, big deal. Anyway, just to show once again that you >> don't know crap about the subject and since you have NO idea what I >> was talking about referring to "locally", lets take for example the >> +--- sign convention and look at the 4-vector velocity of ANYTHING >> for ANY metric globally speaking. It sure looks like an invariant >> to me.. > > Just to spell it out, its spacetime length is always c, i.e. in the > +--- convention, U_µU^µ=c² for anything anywhere for any metric. > Einstein's 'spacetime' is constructed on the basis that light speed is always c. Naturally its use will always predict light speed to be c. that is called circular logic....the stuff dingleberries are noted for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4476715a-b011-482a-a204-bcc42c12444a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379939 |
W dniu środa, 23 marca 2016 17:50:50 UTC+1 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > E²=p²c²+m²c⁴ > is preserved as everywhere locally valid even in GR. the idiotic tautology preserves imbecilies only: 1/1-x^2 = x^2/1-x^2 + 1 = (x^2 + 1 - x^2) / 1-x^2 = 1/1-x^2 thus: 1 = 1; And this is the relativistic great discivery. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 09:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncv69u$1s0m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379918 |
On 24/03/16 00:24, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:24:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> I did not say I reject the idea that mass converts to energy >> and vice versa. > > Now you MUST stop telling lies. Of course you reject the E = m*c^2 concept. > It is based upon invariant c, and you DO reject that. What a miserably decrepit individual you are. c is not variable. It is a universal constant. Light speed is variable like anything else. ..and the speed of light relative to the field from which it originates is always c, as far as we know..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <431eab2d-c401-41a1-bc93-ccbb5c9c5c51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379995 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 24/03/16 00:24, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:24:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > I did not say I reject the idea that mass converts to energy > > > and vice versa. > > > > Now you MUST stop telling lies. Of course you reject the E = m*c^2 concept. > > It is based upon invariant c, and you DO reject that. > > What a miserably decrepit individual you are. This is not about me, it's about reality. > c is not variable. It is a universal constant. Light speed is variable > like anything else. Now you really have to stop telling these lies. It reflects upon your integrity, which you have too little of as it is. > ..and the speed of light relative to the field from which it originates is > always c, as far as we know.. As far as we know, you don't know anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 09:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ncv744$1tcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379901 |
On 23/03/16 13:22, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> Henry Wilson, being a properly qualified physicist rather than a > It is GOOD to want to know more, to find out the "why" of things -- I > do, too. But I don't fight against reality like you do. You, for > example, refuse to believe that the speed of light is invariant. > That idea flies in the face of common sense. Why ever would that be? > Whatever could CAUSE such a ridiculous thing? So you reject the > profusion of evidence that supports invariance and refutes ballistic > theory in favor of a half-baked speculation about variable stars that > is bilious nonsense. You are such an ignorant little shit that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <965b2c98-7f3d-4313-bafd-b8c98cec7bf6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379998 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 23/03/16 13:22, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Henry Wilson, being a properly qualified physicist rather than a > > > > It is GOOD to want to know more, to find out the "why" of things -- I > > do, too. But I don't fight against reality like you do. You, for > > example, refuse to believe that the speed of light is invariant. > > That idea flies in the face of common sense. Why ever would that be? > > Whatever could CAUSE such a ridiculous thing? So you reject the > > profusion of evidence that supports invariance and refutes ballistic > > theory in favor of a half-baked speculation about variable stars that > > is bilious nonsense. > > You are such an ignorant little shit Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-) But I accept reality whereas you don't. That makes you amazingly delusional. > that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing > speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness. That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse! Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines of emission and absorption. The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent. This is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 19:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nd0a4r$1duq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380020 |
On 24/03/16 14:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> You are such an ignorant little shit > > Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-) > > But I accept reality whereas you don't. That makes you amazingly delusional. > >> that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing >> speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness. > > That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse! > Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines > of emission and absorption. The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of > the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling > due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent. This > is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness. Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed! <plonk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80e7a301-b3db-4c30-81a2-503251e7d6eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380026 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:57:02 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 24/03/16 14:45, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > You are such an ignorant little shit > > > > Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-) > > > > But I accept reality whereas you don't. That makes you amazingly > > delusional. > > > > > that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing > > > speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness. > > > > That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse! > > Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines > > of emission and absorption. The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of > > the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling > > due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent. This > > is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness. > > Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed! > > <plonk> :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he insults and runs away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 08:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nd1khg$122$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380034 |
On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed! >> >> <plonk> > > :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he > insults and runs away. One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith. It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the same goes for all other dingleberries. <final plonk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7311f404-4c81-4310-8167-a288e811c130@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380094 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed! > > > > > > <plonk> > > > > :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he > > insults and runs away. > > One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a > recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches > from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith. > It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the > same goes for all other dingleberries. > > <final plonk> He was describing YOU, delusional one. You have NEVER posted a truly scientific thought on this board. Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 20:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nd8abu$6fm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380101 |
On 25/03/16 09:41, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed! >>>> >>>> <plonk> >>> >>> :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he >>> insults and runs away. >> >> One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a >> recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches >> from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith. >> It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the >> same goes for all other dingleberries. >> >> <final plonk> > > He was describing YOU, delusional one. You have NEVER posted a truly > scientific thought on this board. Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is > supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence. Idiot! Go and read your bible....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <449cdb95-0ce2-442e-8977-cfda053d5ee5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380253 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 25/03/16 09:41, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under > > > > > your bed! > > > > > > > > > > <plonk> > > > > > > > > :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, > > > > he insults and runs away. > > > > > > One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a > > > recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches > > > from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on > > > faith. It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter... > > > and the same goes for all other dingleberries. > > > > > > <final plonk> > > > > He was describing YOU, delusional one. You have NEVER posted a truly > > scientific thought on this board. Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is > > supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence. > > Idiot! Go and read your bible.... So "plonk" is not final and neither is "final plonk" :-))) Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 09:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dpmgfbdeuj5fm9de8i3n9l5eh2mnpgdbdi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380257 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> > > <final plonk> >> > >> > He was describing YOU, delusional one. You have NEVER posted a truly >> > scientific thought on this board. Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is >> > supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence. >> >> Idiot! Go and read your bible.... > >So "plonk" is not final and neither is "final plonk" :-))) > >Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater >speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific >evidence." Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh. <terminal plonk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 20:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84e3b7cc-efa2-4337-8e28-aea6bcb7c566@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380293 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:14:56 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater > > speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific > > evidence." > > Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh. Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence. > <terminal plonk> And we do hope it's true this time :-) "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -- Oscar Wilde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndacft$6sf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380307 |
Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:14:56 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater >> > speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific >> > evidence." >> >> Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh. >Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence. >> <terminal plonk> >And we do hope it's true this time :-) It's fun to watch Ralph squirm, with his head buried in the sand...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 10:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <qaejfb5kr7674ber4oftcgtlijdpoej56e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380310 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:38:21 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moron-y) wrote: >>> >>> Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh. > >>Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence. > >>> <terminal plonk> > >>And we do hope it's true this time :-) > >It's fun to watch Henry squirm, with his head buried in the sand... No ned for me to squirm, Moron-y. I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What is more, I know that none can exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 04:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndd1j1$dv2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380395 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:38:21 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com >(Michael Moron-y) wrote: >>It's fun to watch Henry squirm, with his head buried in the sand... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you really are stupid, aren't you, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, I told you repeatedly not to edit my quotes, Ralph. Ralph, I did not write anything about Henry Wilson squirming, I was talking about watching you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, squirm. Ralph, as you know, Ralph, Henry G. Wilson is a fine scientist, a product of the best universities Australia has to offer, Ralph M. Rabbidge. But Ralph, Henry G. Wilson never posts here, Ralph, because he is much too smart to argue with anti-Einstein kooks such as yourself, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. So Ralph, I have no reason to talk about Henry Wilson squirming, Ralph. >No ned for me to squirm, Moron-y. I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What >is more, I know that none can exist. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that's because you keep burying your head when many people provides you with the evidence, Ralph. Paul Anderson in particular has produced excellent evidence for you, Ralph Rabbidge. If only that you bothered to actually read it, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 11:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nddgdp$afc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #380395 |
On 29.03.2016 01:09, HGW wrote: > > I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What > is more, I know that none can exist. Let's see what a Doctor of science has to say about the BaTh: |On 21.10.2014 23:39, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HG Wilson wrote: |> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:46:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: |> |>> So the BaTh is unfalsifiable. |>> That's a good thing, isn't it? |> |> Truth is indeed unfalsifiable by definition... So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge DSc the BaTh is unfalsifiable and as the fully qualified physicist obviously will know, the BaTh is thus no theory of physics. "True by definition"? "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"? Must be a religion. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 09:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <s9vlfbhgq6rutdkf5p3btoha0o4repemi3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380410 |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:03:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 29.03.2016 01:09, HGW wrote: > > >So according to HG Wilson DSc >the BaTh is unfalsifiable and as the fully >qualified physicist obviously will know, >the BaTh is thus no theory of physics. Paul B. does it hurt you so much to be told that Einstein's plagiarized theory is no different from Lorentz's and that both versions presume the existence of an absolute aether? >"True by definition"? >"No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"? > Must be a religion. Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zcadnSJuyLlER2bLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380444 |
On 3/29/16 3/29/16 5:12 PM, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:03:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: >> "True by definition"? >> "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"? >> Must be a religion. > > Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that. So HGW is the biggest "dingleberry" of them all. Because he wrote: > [about evidence that refutes BaTh] I know that none can exist. This explicitly shows his personal religious fervor about his fantasies (which he calls "BaTh"). In everything he writes, Wilson shows that he is both ignorant and illiterate about physics, and that he is not at all a scientist. He is so bound up in his personal fantasies that he doesn't even realize how damning his own words are. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web