Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380588 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-31 18:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-01 13:04 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:35 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 04:06 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:17 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:10 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:18 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:32 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:13 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:53 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:01 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 07:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 16:19 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:43 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:43 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:28 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:37 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:42 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 16:43 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-02 19:23 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 19:40 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-02 22:09 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 12:20 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 19:58 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 18:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 07:53 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 11:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:13 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 06:04 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-03 15:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:10 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 07:12 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 09:31 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 15:16 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 04:37 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 06:41 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 10:34 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 10:38 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 15:56 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:36 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:30 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:24 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 19:15 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 21:04 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 15:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 09:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 05:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 18:49 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:23 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-04 07:28 -0600
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:42 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:43 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:08 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 17:09 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:20 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:03 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 03:46 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 03:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:27 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-12 09:50 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:17 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 17:57 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 11:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:08 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:48 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:34 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 09:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:04 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 09:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 23:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:49 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 10:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 21:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-15 21:48 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 10:31 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 09:10 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-16 22:19 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:45 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-17 04:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 20:25 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 09:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:47 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:49 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 08:12 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 13:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:54 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 04:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:48 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 14:40 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:50 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 18:18 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 04:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-19 21:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 20:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 14:04 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-20 08:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-21 11:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 12:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:39 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-25 23:27 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-27 05:25 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-27 22:08 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 08:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 15:07 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:37 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 14:45 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 14:39 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-04 12:47 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 06:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-05 21:20 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-05 09:15 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 04:14 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:00 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:25 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-08 07:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:11 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-07 03:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:27 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 04:31 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 20:54 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:17 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-09 00:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:41 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-17 17:38 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:57 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 19:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:05 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:47 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-04 23:00 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 05:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 04:07 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 11:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 19:53 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-04-04 14:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 19:25 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:36 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:46 +0200
This is How it Happened...Summary PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 14:07 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 08:00 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-03 08:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:47 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-17 18:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-03 07:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e230dee-5285-48fc-9d52-6020941181f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384972 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 10:49:10 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:a61a40a3-af0f-42d2-932f-a4abd2937ecb@googlegroups.com... > > > > Nope. Your stupid ranting is tantamount to saying that anyone who accepts > > spherical geometry rejects Eclidean geometry. > > You've probably heard that noneuclidean axioms are > inconsistent with euclidean, have you, poor idiot? Why do you call other people what YOU are? > Yes, accepting one set you're rejecting the other. Nope. Each is useful in its own appropriate regime. > Of course, to know that you'd have to think. > > So? rejecting EG by your bunch of idiots is a triviality - > as you said above, or noone of your bunch of idiots do > it - as you also said above? I use EG when it's appropriate, moron. Apparently, you're just a one-trick pony. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -- Shakespeare
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrcrd$93f$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380800 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >> Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. >Well, I knew this would be too hard for anyone here. Einstein used the >word superfluous... and he was right...as long as the speed of all light >in space was presumed to be unified, ie was source independent, the >aether frame did not need to be mentioned. So here you agree with Einstein in his 1905 paper that there is no need for any aether. >By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its >source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute >aether. No, Ralph, you cannot read. Einstein writes: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." He explicitly states there is no need of any special 'absolutely stationary space', and explicitly states that points in empty space do not have a velocity, explicitly ruling out any aether. Later on he writes the same, he says that spacetime is sort of an aether, but again explicitly states that points in empty space cannot have a velocity component, again ruling out any "luminiferous ether".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ndrk8b$3nr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380824 |
On 04/04/16 01:28, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > >>> Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. > >> Well, I knew this would be too hard for anyone here. Einstein used the >> word superfluous... and he was right...as long as the speed of all light >> in space was presumed to be unified, ie was source independent, the >> aether frame did not need to be mentioned. > > So here you agree with Einstein in his 1905 paper that there is no need > for any aether. Of course. Having included the aether's fundamental role as part of P2, Einstein had no need to mention it by name. >> By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its >> source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute >> aether. > > No, Henry, you cannot read. Einstein writes: "The introduction of a > 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view > here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' > provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point > of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." > He explicitly states there is no need of any special 'absolutely > stationary space', and explicitly states that points in empty space do > not have a velocity, explicitly ruling out any aether. That is what I said. That is a mathematical consequence of the LTs and source independence, the latter which is guaranteed by postulate rather than being physically accomplished through a speed unifying medium. But it was only by assuming the existence of that medium that the postulate made any sense and the rest of the mathematics could be constructed. > Later on he writes the same, he says that spacetime is sort of an aether, > but again explicitly states that points in empty space cannot have a > velocity component, again ruling out any "luminiferous ether". Spacetime is nonsense. The two dimensions are unrelated...but at least Einstein was finally waking up to the fact that not only was the aether superfluous but also it didn't actually exist, just as Walter Ritz had been trying to convince him years before. The trouble was, Einstein still clung to an assumption of its existence through his source independence claim. That is why he ended up reinventing Lorentz's theory. I hope all that is not still too hard for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndro2l$jue$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380831 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 04/04/16 01:28, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its >>> source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute >>> aether. >> >> No, Henry, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you have gotten into the stupid pills again, Ralph. Ralph, don't they at least require a prescription for stupid pills in Oz? Ralph, it looks like you downed the whole bottle again. Ralph, do I have to punish you again? >> you cannot read. Einstein writes: "The introduction of a >> 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view >> here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' >> provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point >> of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." >> He explicitly states there is no need of any special 'absolutely >> stationary space', and explicitly states that points in empty space do >> not have a velocity, explicitly ruling out any aether. >That is what I said. No, Ralph, it isn't. You claimed Einstein accepted the existence of the absolute aether yet I posted direct quotes from his 1905 paper where he said he had no need for any aether. And that phrase is the only place in that paper where the word "aether" or "ether" was mentioned, as Tom Lahn also pointed out to you. > That is a mathematical consequence of the LTs and >source independence, the latter which is guaranteed by postulate rather >than being physically accomplished through a speed unifying medium. No, Lorenz started off with the assumption of an aether and came to a conclusion, the LT. Einstein went an entirely different route, one that didn't involve any aether (as he explicitly stated) and came up with a mathematically identical solution. > But >it was only by assuming the existence of that medium that the postulate >made any sense and the rest of the mathematics could be constructed. No, there is no reason to assume any sort of aether for the postulate to make any sense. Go through his math, he makes no reference to any aether except to disavow it. Maybe the only way for YOU to make sense of it is to involve an aether, but many minds much greater than yours, including Einstein's, have no need for an aether. >> Later on he writes the same, he says that spacetime is sort of an aether, >> but again explicitly states that points in empty space cannot have a >> velocity component, again ruling out any "luminiferous ether". >Spacetime is nonsense. The two dimensions are unrelated...but at least >Einstein was finally waking up to the fact that not only was the aether >superfluous but also it didn't actually exist, just as Walter Ritz had >been trying to convince him years before. So now you're back to claiming there's no aether. At least Einstein was consistent, he disavowed aether except as possibly a property of spacetime so vacuum would have values for such things as mu0 or e0. >The trouble was, Einstein still clung to an assumption of its existence >through his source independence claim. That is why he ended up >reinventing Lorentz's theory. >I hope all that is not still too hard for you. No, Ralph, he explicitly said he had no need for an aether. How do you go from "no need for an aether" to "Einstein still clung to an assumption of its existence"? Lay off those stupid pals, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90c1c27e-7fed-4891-a967-be682eda8b69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380838 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 2:40:47 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: > > >On 04/04/16 01:28, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>> By stating that light speed was independent of the movement of its > >>> source in his P2, Einstein was accepting the existence of the absolute > >>> aether. > >> > >> No, Henry, > > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you have gotten into the stupid pills again, > Ralph. Ralph, don't they at least require a prescription for stupid pills > in Oz? Ralph, it looks like you downed the whole bottle again. Ralph, do > I have to punish you again? > > >> you cannot read. Einstein writes: "The introduction of a > >> 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view > >> here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' > >> provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point > >> of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." > >> He explicitly states there is no need of any special 'absolutely > >> stationary space', and explicitly states that points in empty space do > >> not have a velocity, explicitly ruling out any aether. > > >That is what I said. > > No, Ralph, it isn't. You claimed Einstein accepted the existence of the > absolute aether yet I posted direct quotes from his 1905 paper where he > said he had no need for any aether. And that phrase is the only place > in that paper where the word "aether" or "ether" was mentioned, as Tom > Lahn also pointed out to you. > > > That is a mathematical consequence of the LTs and > >source independence, the latter which is guaranteed by postulate rather > >than being physically accomplished through a speed unifying medium. > > No, Lorenz started off with the assumption of an aether and came to a > conclusion, the LT. Einstein went an entirely different route, one that > didn't involve any aether (as he explicitly stated) and came up with a > mathematically identical solution. Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. > > > But > >it was only by assuming the existence of that medium that the postulate > >made any sense and the rest of the mathematics could be constructed. > > No, there is no reason to assume any sort of aether for the postulate to > make any sense. Go through his math, he makes no reference to any aether > except to disavow it. Maybe the only way for YOU to make sense of it is > to involve an aether, but many minds much greater than yours, including > Einstein's, have no need for an aether. > > >> Later on he writes the same, he says that spacetime is sort of an aether, > >> but again explicitly states that points in empty space cannot have a > >> velocity component, again ruling out any "luminiferous ether". > > >Spacetime is nonsense. The two dimensions are unrelated...but at least > >Einstein was finally waking up to the fact that not only was the aether > >superfluous but also it didn't actually exist, just as Walter Ritz had > >been trying to convince him years before. > > So now you're back to claiming there's no aether. At least Einstein was > consistent, he disavowed aether except as possibly a property of spacetime > so vacuum would have values for such things as mu0 or e0. > > >The trouble was, Einstein still clung to an assumption of its existence > >through his source independence claim. That is why he ended up > >reinventing Lorentz's theory. > > >I hope all that is not still too hard for you. > > No, Ralph, he explicitly said he had no need for an aether. How do you go > from "no need for an aether" to "Einstein still clung to an assumption of > its existence"? Lay off those stupid pals, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 07:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-567626.07280304042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380868 |
In article <90c1c27e-7fed-4891-a967-be682eda8b69@googlegroups.com>, kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different location > in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. Those who still believe in an ether theory should stop sniffing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndtr0c$1lq3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380868 |
On 4/4/2016 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different > location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. Reference frames are not locations. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b66ecc77-3d47-42f9-821b-77052ea7983a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380874 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:42:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/4/2016 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different > > location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. > > Reference frames are not locations. It can be....for example an SR observer's claims to be in an inertial frame and his location is a reference frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndu3i8$60n$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380880 |
On 4/4/2016 9:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:42:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different >>> location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. >> >> Reference frames are not locations. > > It can be....for example an SR observer's claims to be in an inertial frame and his location is a reference frame. > > No, Ken, a location is never a reference frame. You might be confused about what a reference frame is. What do you think a reference frame is? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndu73r$sr7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380880 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:42:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different >> > location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. >> >> Reference frames are not locations. >It can be....for example an SR observer's claims to be in an inertial >frame and his location is a reference frame. So given this, and your false claim that there can be no inertial frame on earth, you don't understand what a reference frame is. An SR observer is in an infinite number of reference frames. To make the math easier, he'll choose one where the math simplifies. Often this is the frame where the observer is at the origin and he has zero velocity in this frame, and the axes aligned in a certain way (such as the observed object moves along the X axis). Learn what a reference frame is before spewing falsehoods. Otherwise, all you do is make a fool of yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 07:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1338b3d-cb4c-4c9f-a18d-0c0684ab16f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380888 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:09:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:42:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/4/2016 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for different > >> > location in the stationary ether, That's why SR and LET derived the same math. > >> > >> Reference frames are not locations. > > >It can be....for example an SR observer's claims to be in an inertial > >frame and his location is a reference frame. > > So given this, and your false claim that there can be no inertial frame > on earth, you don't understand what a reference frame is. > > An SR observer is in an infinite number of reference frames. To make the > math easier, he'll choose one where the math simplifies. Often this is > the frame where the observer is at the origin and he has zero velocity in > this frame, and the axes aligned in a certain way (such as the observed > object moves along the X axis). So that means that an inertial frame is imaginary....it is simply a declaration of the SR observer that he is in an inertial frame and derive the math from such frame. LET makes similar declaration only that the LET observer acknowledges that he is in the ether frame and derive the LET math using such frame. Now do you see why SR and LET drive the same math? In case you are too stupid to understand.....an inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether frame. > > Learn what a reference frame is before spewing falsehoods. Otherwise, all > you do is make a fool of yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne0njt$tn5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380962 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:09:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Reference frames are not locations. >> >It can be....for example an SR observer's claims to be in an inertial=20 >> >frame and his location is a reference frame. >> So given this, and your false claim that there can be no inertial frame >> on earth, you don't understand what a reference frame is. >> An SR observer is in an infinite number of reference frames. To make the >> math easier, he'll choose one where the math simplifies. Often this is >> the frame where the observer is at the origin and he has zero velocity in >> this frame, and the axes aligned in a certain way (such as the observed >> object moves along the X axis). >So that means that an inertial frame is imaginary.... A reference frame is a set of coordinates, position, orientation, velocity etc. It is not a physical object. You really need to look up what a reference frame is, rather than making up your own definition and then complaining when others use a definition (the accepted one!) that doesn't match yours. >it is simply a >declaration of the SR observer that he is in an inertial frame and derive >the math from such frame. No, the observer cannot just declare he's in an inertial frame. For that to be true the Newtonian laws must hold true in that frame, and he must not be accelerating in that frame > LET makes similar declaration only that the LET >observer acknowledges that he is in the ether frame and derive the LET >math using such frame. What LET assumes about ether doesn't apply to a completely different theory, SR. An earth-centered solar system model with epicycles and a sun-centered solar system with no need for epicycles both explain the motions of the planets. But you can't take epicycles and apply them to the sun-centered model and claim the sun-centered model needs or uses epicycles. And just because LET with an aether and SR with no aether come to the same conclusion doesn't mean you can take LET's aether and tack it on to SR with no use for an aether. >In case you are too stupid to understand.....an inertial frame in SR is >just another name for the ether frame. Since SR has no aether, that is simply impossible and doesn't make any sense. >> Learn what a reference frame is before spewing falsehoods. Otherwise, all >> you do is make a fool of yourself. So are you finally going to go learn what reference frames are? Wormley gave you a couple links.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 03:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ne0tlo$obu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380968 |
On 06/04/16 02:03, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> So that means that an inertial frame is imaginary.... > > A reference frame is a set of coordinates, position, orientation, velocity > etc. It is not a physical object. You really need to look up what a > reference frame is, rather than making up your own definition and then > complaining when others use a definition (the accepted one!) that doesn't > match yours. The reference frames we use here are almost entirely 1D and are for speed reference only. That is why all speeds must be frame dependent. Lorentz thought he had found a way to get around that problem in the case of light with automatically self-adjusting instruments (apparently the fairies were involved). >> it is simply a >> declaration of the SR observer that he is in an inertial frame and derive >> the math from such frame. > > No, the observer cannot just declare he's in an inertial frame. For > that to be true the Newtonian laws must hold true in that frame, and > he must not be accelerating in that frame. All observers are always in all frames. Any single observer can be used to specify a frame in which he is always at rest. If he is accelerating, the frame is not inertial, although nobody seems to know if free falling is inertial or not. >> LET makes similar declaration only that the LET >> observer acknowledges that he is in the ether frame and derive the LET >> math using such frame. > > What LET assumes about ether doesn't apply to a completely different > theory, SR. It is no different from LET. After the application of the LTs, the absolute frame becomes superfluous in LET just as it does in SR. Lorentz had already discovered SR. An earth-centered solar system model with epicycles and a > sun-centered solar system with no need for epicycles both explain the > motions of the planets. But you can't take epicycles and apply them to the > sun-centered model and claim the sun-centered model needs or uses > epicycles. And just because LET with an aether and SR with no aether come > to the same conclusion doesn't mean you can take LET's aether and tack it > on to SR with no use for an aether. > >> In case you are too stupid to understand.....an inertial frame in SR is >> just another name for the ether frame. > > Since SR has no aether, that is simply impossible and doesn't make any > sense. In SR, every observer effectively has a 'personal aether frame'. That is a direct result of Lorentz's work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne9ssg$gpi$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380979 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 06/04/16 02:03, Michael Moroney wrote: >> A reference frame is a set of coordinates, position, orientation, velocity >> etc. It is not a physical object. You really need to look up what a >> reference frame is, rather than making up your own definition and then >> complaining when others use a definition (the accepted one!) that doesn't >> match yours. >The reference frames we use here are almost entirely 1D and are for >speed reference only. That is why all speeds must be frame dependent. >Lorentz thought he had found a way to get around that problem in the >case of light with automatically self-adjusting instruments (apparently >the fairies were involved). Ralph, you're babbling. >All observers are always in all frames. Any single observer can be used >to specify a frame in which he is always at rest. If he is accelerating, >the frame is not inertial, although nobody seems to know if free falling >is inertial or not. Oh you were doing so well with this paragraph until the comma, when you went off into the weeds. Freefall is inertial, pretty much by definition. >> What LET assumes about ether doesn't apply to a completely different >> theory, SR. >It is no different from LET. After the application of the LTs, the >absolute frame becomes superfluous in LET just as it does in SR. The absolute frame cannot "become superfluous" in SR if it never was part of SR in the first place! > An earth-centered solar system model with epicycles and a >> sun-centered solar system with no need for epicycles both explain the >> motions of the planets. But you can't take epicycles and apply them to the >> sun-centered model and claim the sun-centered model needs or uses >> epicycles. And just because LET with an aether and SR with no aether come >> to the same conclusion doesn't mean you can take LET's aether and tack it >> on to SR with no use for an aether. >> >>> In case you are too stupid to understand.....an inertial frame in SR is >>> just another name for the ether frame. Ralph, Ralph, Ralph. How many times does it have to be explained to you that SR has no ether frame whatsoever! How can an inertial frame be another name for the ether frame if aether was explicitly disavowed in the paper defining SR and never mentioned again? >> Since SR has no aether, that is simply impossible and doesn't make any >> sense. >In SR, every observer effectively has a 'personal aether frame'. That is >a direct result of Lorentz's work. 'Personal aether frame'? You are off your meds, Ralph. That is so stupid, even for you. And once again, we're talking about SR, not LET. LET does refer to an aether, SR does not. You're bouncing back and forth between being somewhat lucid and babbling, Ralph. Talk to your doctor about getting your meds adjusted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <neh8bu$1325$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381190 |
On 09/04/16 13:28, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >> All observers are always in all frames. Any single observer can be used >> to specify a frame in which he is always at rest. If he is accelerating, >> the frame is not inertial, although nobody seems to know if free falling >> is inertial or not. > > Oh you were doing so well with this paragraph until the comma, when you > went off into the weeds. Freefall is inertial, pretty much by definition. If an observer on the moon watched an object free falling towards Earth, his LOS angle would be accelerating. He would assume a force was acting on the object and it was not inertial. > The absolute frame cannot "become superfluous" in SR if it never was part > of SR in the first place! > >> An earth-centered solar system model with epicycles and a >>> sun-centered solar system with no need for epicycles both explain the >>> motions of the planets. But you can't take epicycles and apply them to the >>> sun-centered model and claim the sun-centered model needs or uses >>> epicycles. And just because LET with an aether and SR with no aether come >>> to the same conclusion doesn't mean you can take LET's aether and tack it >>> on to SR with no use for an aether. >>> >>>> In case you are too stupid to understand.....an inertial frame in SR is >>>> just another name for the ether frame. > > Henry, Henry, Henry. How many times does it have to be explained to > you that SR has no ether frame whatsoever! How can an inertial frame be > another name for the ether frame if aether was explicitly disavowed in > the paper defining SR and never mentioned again? Don't misquote me, you desperate lying dingleberry cretin. Seto wrote that not I. >>> Since SR has no aether, that is simply impossible and doesn't make any >>> sense. > >> In SR, every observer effectively has a 'personal aether frame'. That is >> a direct result of Lorentz's work. > > 'Personal aether frame'? You are off your meds, Ralph. That is so stupid, > even for you. And once again, we're talking about SR, not LET. LET does > refer to an aether, SR does not. Idiot, You don't even know how Einstein was able to interpret and plagiarize the consequences of Lorentz's theory. The existence of the aether medium is fundamental to both theories. It provides the source independence of light speed that Einstein took for granted in his second postulate. Because of the (bogus) LTs, the aether plays no further part in either theory and needs not be mentioned...but it is always there as a presumed and fundamental feature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lvKdnRPGduyylpDKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #381398 |
On 4/11/16 4/11/16 - 5:27 PM, HGW wrote: > If an observer on the moon watched an object free falling towards Earth, his LOS > angle would be accelerating. He would assume a force was acting on the object > and it was not inertial. You're attempting to live back in the 19th century (or earlier). Today we know that inertial frames are valid only locally, so your claim here is irrelevant. > You don't even know how Einstein was able to interpret and plagiarize the > consequences of Lorentz's theory. NEITHER DO YOU! All you do it make it up and pretend it is true. If you would actually READ the relevant history books, you would KNOW that your claims are wrong. Or better, LEARN what the different theories actually said -- then you would also KNOW they are quite different, and "plagiarism" is not applicable. > [... further fantasies] You take great pains to keep yourself perpetually ignorant of physics. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 08:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nejs5b$1ajr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381443 |
On 13/04/16 00:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/11/16 4/11/16 - 5:27 PM, HGW wrote: >> If an observer on the moon watched an object free falling towards >> Earth, his LOS angle would be accelerating. He would assume a force >> was acting on the object and it was not inertial. > > You're attempting to live back in the 19th century (or earlier). > Today we know that inertial frames are valid only locally, so your > claim here is irrelevant. On what grounds do you claim that free falling is inertial? Are you ignorant of the fact that the force of gravity acts on a downwardly accelerating object? That is why it accelerates. ...or do you still believe that the Earth's surface is actually accelerating towards the object? >> You don't even know how Einstein was able to interpret and >> plagiarize the consequences of Lorentz's theory. > NEITHER DO YOU! All you do it make it up and pretend it is true. If > you would actually READ the relevant history books, you would KNOW > that your claims are wrong. > > Or better, LEARN what the different theories actually said -- then > you would also KNOW they are quite different, and "plagiarism" is not > applicable. I am quite aware that Einstein developed Lorentz's SciFi nonsense to a much higher level. >> [... further fantasies] > > You take great pains to keep yourself perpetually ignorant of > physics. How sad. Tom, how could light from differently moving sources find a common speed IF NO unifying medium was present? Einstein clearly assumed the aether existed, as he acknowledged later. What is more, judging by everything you an Paul B Andersen say, both of you still believe such a medium exists. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6eb8e224-2717-410d-84e8-ceaa7e685441@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381468 |
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > Tom, how could light from differently moving sources find a common speed > IF NO unifying medium was present? Einstein clearly assumed the aether > existed, as he acknowledged later. What is more, judging by everything > you an Paul B Andersen say, both of you still believe such a medium exists. The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. It appears that contrary to our native intuitions, we do not live in a three dimensional space with time as a separate entity. Rather, the local universe is better modeled as a blend of three space dimensions and one time dimension resulting in a four dimensional spacetime. At low speeds, it is hardly possible at all to distinguish the geometry of the local universe from the three space dimensions that our native intuition insists that it *must* be. Discrepancies from this notion only appear at high speeds. By analogy, the local surface of the Earth seems flat. Over distances of less than, say, 10 miles or so, there are hardly any measurements that we can make with instruments of ordinary precision that would contradict this native intuition that we hold of a flat Earth. Discrepancies from this notion only appear over long distances. Our brains are wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the geometrical consequences of living on the surface of a sphere. Our brains are *not* wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the geometrical consequences of living in a four dimensional spacetime. Our native intuitions of what *must be* and what *can't be* are faulty. In *YOUR* case, *YOU* consistently mistake your native intuition of what *must be* for gospel truth. It is a religious campaign that you wage. For a supposed atheist, that seems rather ironic to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 11:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nek7eb$1n92$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381479 |
On 13/04/16 10:57, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> Tom, how could light from differently moving sources find a common speed >> IF NO unifying medium was present? Einstein clearly assumed the aether >> existed, as he acknowledged later. What is more, judging by everything >> you an Paul B Andersen say, both of you still believe such a medium exists. > > The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure > geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. HAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHA! What an idiot. The geometry of Einstein's 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that ligth speed is source independent. That doesn't prove that it is and nor does it provide a reason why that can be true. > It appears that contrary to our native intuitions, we do not live in a three > dimensional space with time as a separate entity. Rather, the local universe is > better modeled as a blend of three space dimensions and one time dimension > resulting in a four dimensional spacetime. Crap! > At low speeds, it is hardly possible at all to distinguish the geometry of the > local universe from the three space dimensions that our native intuition insists > that it *must* be. Discrepancies from this notion only appear at high speeds. > > By analogy, the local surface of the Earth seems flat. Over distances of less > than, say, 10 miles or so, there are hardly any measurements that we can make > with instruments of ordinary precision that would contradict this native > intuition that we hold of a flat Earth. Discrepancies from this notion only > appear over long distances. > > Our brains are wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the > geometrical consequences of living on the surface of a sphere. Our brains are > *not* wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the geometrical > consequences of living in a four dimensional spacetime. Prokaryotes don't have brains. Didn't you know? > Our native intuitions of what *must be* and what *can't be* are faulty. > > In *YOUR* case, *YOU* consistently mistake your native intuition of what > *must be* for gospel truth. It is a religious campaign that you wage. For a > supposed atheist, that seems rather ironic to me. Gawd! ...another bible basher....No wonder he has been sucked in by Einstein's crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da245999-d225-4d67-9ce9-8164c791c4ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381481 |
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 13/04/16 10:57, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure > > geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. > > HAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHA! What an idiot. The geometry of Einstein's > 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that ligth speed is source > independent. That doesn't prove that it is and nor does it provide a > reason why that can be true. Practically every measurement made in our little local segment of the universe is consistent with the geometry of the universe being roughly that of Minkowski spacetime. Outside of this little local segment of the universe, there is plenty of evidence for a more elaborate geometry. Meanwhile, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light may be source dependent. Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star luminosity curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. You are unable to fit any other observed aspect of the variable stars that you have chosen for your fits: You cannot explain their Doppler shifts, their color changes, interferometric measurements of changes in their diameters or (in the case of eclipsing binaries) their interferometric resolution into separate stars. You cannot explain broadening and narrowing of their spectral lines, periodic shifts in the stars' spectral classes, and so forth. You cannot explain the myriad multiple stars that *do not* exhibit significant variability. Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin said it best: "Three out of every two stars are in a binary system." Why are there so few variable stars, then? > > It appears that contrary to our native intuitions, we do not live in a three > > dimensional space with time as a separate entity. Rather, the local universe is > > better modeled as a blend of three space dimensions and one time dimension > > resulting in a four dimensional spacetime. > > Crap! That is a pathetic, inadequate response. > > At low speeds, it is hardly possible at all to distinguish the geometry of the > > local universe from the three space dimensions that our native intuition insists > > that it *must* be. Discrepancies from this notion only appear at high speeds. > > > > By analogy, the local surface of the Earth seems flat. Over distances of less > > than, say, 10 miles or so, there are hardly any measurements that we can make > > with instruments of ordinary precision that would contradict this native > > intuition that we hold of a flat Earth. Discrepancies from this notion only > > appear over long distances. > > > > Our brains are wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the > > geometrical consequences of living on the surface of a sphere. Our brains are > > *not* wired in such a fashion that we can easily appreciate the geometrical > > consequences of living in a four dimensional spacetime. > > Prokaryotes don't have brains. Didn't you know? Are insults your only response? > > Our native intuitions of what *must be* and what *can't be* are faulty. > > > > In *YOUR* case, *YOU* consistently mistake your native intuition of what > > *must be* for gospel truth. It is a religious campaign that you wage. For a > > supposed atheist, that seems rather ironic to me. > > Gawd! ...another bible basher....No wonder he has been sucked in by > Einstein's crap. Are insults your only response? I am not particularly religious. It definitely seems that *YOU* are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web