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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 07:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <5bn5gbphuqai1t40kbp4cr658msmaj6eeg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380893 |
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:47:03 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 4/4/16 4/4/16 - 11:10 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >In Newtonian mechanics and in SR, by definition an inertial frame is ASSUMED to >extend forever in all directions and in time, so each one covers the (infinite) >manifold being used to model the universe. > >That assumption was not challenged until Einstein was well along the road from >SR to GR. In GR we know that no such "inertial frame" can exist in the world we >inhabit. The problem is with implicitly extending it forever in all directions >and in time, not with what "inertial" means. In GR, there are LOCALLY inertial >frames whose maximum extent depends on how accurately they should be inertial >(i.e. what measurement resolution is applicable). > > And as I keep emphasizing, almost all laboratory experiments > can be analyzed using SR and a locally inertial frame. The lab > does not extend forever. It does in the real world. >It is true that in the world we inhabit there are no inertial frames in the >sense of NM and SR -- there never were (but this was not realized until after >1915). There most definitely are locally inertial frames in the sense of GR; >indeed one can ALWAYS find an infinite set of them [#] everywhere and everywhen. >They all share the property that they are freely falling, and thus near earth's >surface none are at rest relative to the ground. > > [#] And the members of each set are related by Lorentz transforms. Stop trying to make excuses for the stupid theory. I gather you are saying that the axes of an inertial frame are not straight or of fixed calibration in gravity because space has to be magically distorted to make light speed appear constant. >Note that an "ether frame" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this, and there >_IS_ no "ether" in either SR or GR. This is so regardless of how a few >illiterate people attempt to interpret some of Einstein's casual remarks. The basic and crucial assumption made by Einstein is that all light speeds are united in by the existence of a universal medium. It is stated in his P2. It is the medium that is responsible for the supposed source independence. Beyond that, there is no reason to actually mention the aether at all...but it is always there in the background. The only person who did not need an aether in 1905 was Walter Ritz, the creator of TRUE RELATIVITY. >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 06:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndvlen$74a$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380912 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:47:03 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> >wrote: >>Note that an "ether frame" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this, and there >>_IS_ no "ether" in either SR or GR. This is so regardless of how a few >>illiterate people attempt to interpret some of Einstein's casual remarks. >The basic and crucial assumption made by Einstein is that all light speeds are >united in by the existence of a universal medium. Ralph, you know pefectly well Einstein never said that. You know that Einstein never mentioned aether in his SR paper other than to disavow its need. > It is stated in his P2. No, it is not, Ralph. P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum is always c. Period. End of sentence. No mention of aether, or any other reason. > It is >the medium that is responsible for the supposed source independence. Maybe that's what YOU believe, but not Einstein. Why would you think Einstein believed that when he explicitly stated he wasn't going to use aether at all in his paper, then never mentions it again? > Beyond >that, there is no reason to actually mention the aether at all...but it is >always there in the background. Again, that may be what YOU believe, but that has nothing to do with what Einstein believed. Don't blame Einstein for your mistaken beliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 21:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ne0716$186t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380927 |
On 05/04/16 16:20, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <xxx@....> writes: > >> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:47:03 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: > >>> Note that an "ether frame" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this, and there >>> _IS_ no "ether" in either SR or GR. This is so regardless of how a few >>> illiterate people attempt to interpret some of Einstein's casual remarks. > >> The basic and crucial assumption made by Einstein is that all light speeds are >> united in by the existence of a universal medium. > > Henry, you know pefectly well Einstein never said that. You know that > Einstein never mentioned aether in his SR paper other than to > disavow its need. He didn't have to say it or mention it. It was taken for granted. Everybody believed an aether existed and light was a traveling wave >> It is stated in his P2. > > No, it is not, Henry. P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum > is always c. Period. End of sentence. No mention of aether, or any > other reason. You obviously have not read his 1905 paper so are in no position to say what is in it. I see little point in trying to educate you. > >> It is >> the medium that is responsible for the supposed source independence. > > Maybe that's what YOU believe, but not Einstein. Why would you think > Einstein believed that when he explicitly stated he wasn't going to use > aether at all in his paper, then never mentions it again? The aether is superfluous as he said... and I said.. and Lorentz probably said before Einstein....but ONLY if the speed of all light is unified. That is presumed to have been done by the aether. If Einstein did not believe in an aether, on what grounds did he claim that all light moved at c IRRESPECTIVE OF source movement? What in your opinion could be Einstein's alternative reason for postulating source independency. >> Beyond >> that, there is no reason to actually mention the aether at all...but it is >> always there in the background. > > Again, that may be what YOU believe, but that has nothing to do with > what Einstein believed. Don't blame Einstein for your mistaken beliefs. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne0k19$oft$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380944 |
HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >On 05/04/16 16:20, Michael Moroney didn't write: >> Henry, you know pefectly well Einstein never said that. You know that >> No, it is not, Henry. P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! I just told you, lay off the stupid pills, Ralph! Mr. Rabbidge, instead you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) took a double dose instead, Ralph. So Ralph Rabbidge, how is it at all possible for you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, to even remember to breathe if you are really that stupid, Ralph. >>> The basic and crucial assumption made by Einstein is that all light speeds are >>> united in by the existence of a universal medium. >> >> Henry, you know pefectly well Einstein never said that. You know that >> Einstein never mentioned aether in his SR paper other than to >> disavow its need. >He didn't have to say it or mention it. It was taken for granted. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, no he did not, Ralph. Ralph, the only time he even mentioned aether in his SR paper, Ralph, is near the beginning when he explicitly said he was not going to use any sort of aether or absolute frame in this paper. >Everybody believed an aether existed and light was a traveling wave Which is why his SR paper was a breakthrough. Ralph, Einstein already knew (from his photoelectric work) that light had some wavelike properties and some particlelike properties, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, he realized that one of those particlelike properties was the ability to travel through empty space with no need for a medium, Ralph. Ralph, just like a bullet, Ralph. >> No, it is not, Henry. P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum >> is always c. Period. End of sentence. No mention of aether, or any >> other reason. >You obviously have not read his 1905 paper so are in no position to say >what is in it. I see little point in trying to educate you. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again, Ralph, the only mention of "aether" was a phrase stating there was no need to consider any aether, Ralph. Ralph, how did you miss that, Ralph? Are you stupid, Ralph? Oh yeah, you overdosed on those stupid pills, Ralph. >The aether is superfluous as he said... and I said.. So Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why do you keep blaming Einstein for your own weakness (a need for an aether), Ralph? >What in your opinion could be Einstein's alternative reason for >postulating source independency. Ralph, Einstein already knew that light was always measured as travelling at c, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, Einstein also knew that Maxwell's Equations predicted light always travelled at c, Ralph. So Ralph, Einstein simply decided that it was a fact that light travelled at c without trying to explain it, Ralph. It's like accepting as fact that the sun rises in the east without explaining that that's because of the rotation of the earth or Apollo's Fiery Chariot or anything else, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vrSdnc1WnKIeVZ7KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380927 |
On 4/5/16 4/5/16 - 1:20 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum
> is always c.
It is difficult to argue effectively when you get very basic stuff wrong. That
is _NOT_ Einstein's second postulate; it is:
Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body.
-- Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905.
("stationary" was defined earlier, and in modern terms is a
label that refers to an arbitrary inertial frame.)
Some later authors use a variation of what you said in place of Einstein's
second postulate. Given his first postulate and the definition of inertial
frames, either version of P2 implies the other, so they are equivalent as far as
deriving the equations of the theory are concerned.
Presumably Einstein phrased his P2 as he did so his readers (in 1905!) would
more easily accept it. The then-prevalent aether theory of electrodynamics
directly implied his P2, but not the version you used. But HGW is completely
wrong in claiming SR somehow magically "depends" on an aether (his version of
"logic" is hopeless, as are all his other gross misconceptions).
Today, as I have said so often, NEITHER version of P2 is required to derive the
equations of SR. All that's required is: P1, the definition of inertial frames,
and some basic experimental evidence such as the fact that pion beams exist.
Physicists consider mathematics to be "free" and need not be
mentioned. Group theory figures prominently in this derivation
-- just one more important subject of which HGW is completely
ignorant.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 04:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ne0v9s$rkj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380961 |
On 06/04/16 00:15, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/5/16 4/5/16 - 1:20 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> P2 simply states the speed of light in vacuum
>> is always c.
>
> It is difficult to argue effectively when you get very basic stuff
> wrong.
Quite right! Moron-y is not very knowledgeable.
That is _NOT_ Einstein's second postulate; it is:
>
> Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
> stationary or by a moving body.
> -- Einstein, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905.
>
> ("stationary" was defined earlier, and in modern terms is a
> label that refers to an arbitrary inertial frame.)
>
> Some later authors use a variation of what you said in place of
> Einstein's second postulate. Given his first postulate and the
> definition of inertial frames, either version of P2 implies the other,
> so they are equivalent as far as deriving the equations of the theory
> are concerned.
The LAWS of physics are not the VALUES of individual perameters.
> Presumably Einstein phrased his P2 as he did so his readers (in 1905!)
> would more easily accept it. The then-prevalent aether theory of
> electrodynamics directly implied his P2, but not the version you used.
> But HGW is completely wrong in claiming SR somehow magically "depends"
> on an aether (his version of "logic" is hopeless, as are all his other
> gross misconceptions).
>
> Today, as I have said so often, NEITHER version of P2 is required to
> derive the equations of SR. All that's required is: P1, the definition
> of inertial frames, and some basic experimental evidence such as the
> fact that pion beams exist.
Oh you are really funny today, Tom. P1 describes the true relativity of
Walter Ritz, Newton, Galileo and all other enlightened people.
Einstein's version was a farce because it was specifically designed to
accommodate his bogus P2. Einstein clearly needed the aether medium to
provide source independence and he clearly needed Lorentz's transforms
to provide observer independence. Lorentz had already done all that by
working forward from the aether. Einstein postulated independence and
worked backwards to rediscover Lorentz's maths.
> Physicists consider mathematics to be "free" and need not be
> mentioned. Group theory figures prominently in this derivation
> -- just one more important subject of which HGW is completely
> ignorant.
...more big meaningless terms used by Tom...
EINSTEIN STOLE LORENTZ'S THEORY. BOTH NEED AN ABSOLUTE FRAME. Get used
to it!
>
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7f2f802-b902-49f3-912a-8572c86f4bd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380885 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether > >>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. > >> > >> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is > >> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. > > > > ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? > > No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no > reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne1d3q$1m6v$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380960 |
On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether >>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. >>>> >>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is >>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. >>> >>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? >> >> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no >> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. > > > Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: > "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to what I did say. Moreover it is NOT true that an object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial. Nor would I claim it. Ken, perhaps the reason you do not want to go look at books is that you cannot read. When someone types an English sentence, you cannot figure out what the sentence means. There is no point in having a written discussion in English with someone who cannot understand written English, is there? > > However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute > rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be858255-b06e-4812-8e89-0a48f05c631e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381008 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:10:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether > >>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. > >>>> > >>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is > >>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? > >> > >> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no > >> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. > > > > > > Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: > > "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". > > No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to > what I did say. idiot what you said: "no reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is not English. > > Moreover it is NOT true that an object that is not moving relative to > the ground is inertial. Nor would I claim it. > > Ken, perhaps the reason you do not want to go look at books is that you > cannot read. When someone types an English sentence, you cannot figure > out what the sentence means. > > There is no point in having a written discussion in English with someone > who cannot understand written English, is there? > > > > > However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute > > rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne5n3l$su6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381054 |
On 4/6/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:10:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether >>>>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is >>>>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? >>>> >>>> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no >>>> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. >>> >>> >>> Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: >>> "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". >> >> No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to >> what I did say. > > idiot what you said: > "no reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" > is not English. Of course it is. Good grief. If you can't understand simple English, then there is no point in having a discussion with you. > >> >> Moreover it is NOT true that an object that is not moving relative to >> the ground is inertial. Nor would I claim it. >> >> Ken, perhaps the reason you do not want to go look at books is that you >> cannot read. When someone types an English sentence, you cannot figure >> out what the sentence means. >> >> There is no point in having a written discussion in English with someone >> who cannot understand written English, is there? >> >>> >>> However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute >>> rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16057310-3788-4372-b5c8-2ea67ac39924@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381089 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:25:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/6/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:10:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether > >>>>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is > >>>>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. > >>>>> > >>>>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? > >>>> > >>>> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no > >>>> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. > >>> > >>> > >>> Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: > >>> "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". > >> > >> No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to > >> what I did say. > > > > idiot what you said: > > "no reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" > > is not English. > > Of course it is. Good grief. If you can't understand simple English, > then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Idiot.....double negative in a phrase is not "English". > > > > >> > >> Moreover it is NOT true that an object that is not moving relative to > >> the ground is inertial. Nor would I claim it. > >> > >> Ken, perhaps the reason you do not want to go look at books is that you > >> cannot read. When someone types an English sentence, you cannot figure > >> out what the sentence means. > >> > >> There is no point in having a written discussion in English with someone > >> who cannot understand written English, is there? > >> > >>> > >>> However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute > >>> rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne8e7a$1gbd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381140 |
On 4/8/2016 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:25:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/6/2016 3:32 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:10:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether >>>>>>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is >>>>>>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is inertial....right? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no >>>>>> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: >>>>> "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". >>>> >>>> No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to >>>> what I did say. >>> >>> idiot what you said: >>> "no reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" >>> is not English. >> >> Of course it is. Good grief. If you can't understand simple English, >> then there is no point in having a discussion with you. > > Idiot.....double negative in a phrase is not "English". Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. Double negatives are quite common in English. I don't think you, as a non-native English speaker, should be making proclamation about what is English and what is not. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Moreover it is NOT true that an object that is not moving relative to >>>> the ground is inertial. Nor would I claim it. >>>> >>>> Ken, perhaps the reason you do not want to go look at books is that you >>>> cannot read. When someone types an English sentence, you cannot figure >>>> out what the sentence means. >>>> >>>> There is no point in having a written discussion in English with someone >>>> who cannot understand written English, is there? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, this definition has problems.....it implies that the ground is an absolute >>>>> rest frame. LET made the same implication and that's why SR and LET have the same math. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 03:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4298746.OFkKlOjKHS@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #381008 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether
>>>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth.
>>>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is
>>>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial.
>>>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is
>>>> inertial....right?
>>>
>>> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no
>>> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial.
>>
>> Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said:
>> "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial".
>
> No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to
> what I did say.
OK then, let us look at what you said: “no reference frame that is not
moving relative to the ground is inertial.”
Do you agree that this is equivalent to “a reference frame that is not
moving relative to the ground is not (an) inertial (one)”?
Regardless of whether you agree, please explain why you think that the
statement that you agree with would be true in special relativity (which
was the framework of discussion).
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne5n7c$su6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381064 |
On 4/6/2016 8:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/5/2016 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/4/2016 9:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:44:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 4/4/2016 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Idiot....the inertial frame in SR is just another name for the ether >>>>>>> frame. Think about it....there is no inertial frame exists on earth. >>>>>> That's simply not true. What's true is that no reference frame that is >>>>>> not moving relative to the ground is inertial. >>>>> ROTFLOL.....so you are saying that "no reference frame" on earth is >>>>> inertial....right? >>>> >>>> No, not saying that at all. Please reread what I said. I said "no >>>> reference frame that is not moving relative to the ground" is inertial. >>> >>> Your use of double negative is the problem. You should have said: >>> "An object that is not moving relative to the ground is inertial". >> >> No, Ken, that is not what I said, and your sentence is not equivalent to >> what I did say. > > OK then, let us look at what you said: “no reference frame that is not > moving relative to the ground is inertial.” > > Do you agree that this is equivalent to “a reference frame that is not > moving relative to the ground is not (an) inertial (one)”? Yes, I agree. > > Regardless of whether you agree, please explain why you think that the > statement that you agree with would be true in special relativity (which > was the framework of discussion). > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 04:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1546493.WxxhLzD950@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #381090 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/6/2016 8:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> OK then, let us look at what you said: “no reference frame that is not >> moving relative to the ground is inertial.” >> >> Do you agree that this is equivalent to “a reference frame that is not >> moving relative to the ground is not (an) inertial (one)”? > > Yes, I agree. OK, then: >> Regardless of whether you agree, please explain why you think that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> statement that you agree with would be true in special relativity (which >> was the framework of discussion). PointedEars -- Two neutrinos go through a bar ... (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 07:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne880m$13u2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381121 |
On 4/7/2016 9:31 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/6/2016 8:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> OK then, let us look at what you said: “no reference frame that is not >>> moving relative to the ground is inertial.” >>> >>> Do you agree that this is equivalent to “a reference frame that is not >>> moving relative to the ground is not (an) inertial (one)”? >> >> Yes, I agree. > > OK, then: > >>> Regardless of whether you agree, please explain why you think that the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> statement that you agree with would be true in special relativity (which >>> was the framework of discussion). Request declined. > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 20:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1996702.mxlLtXsqOZ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #381137 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 9:31 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2016 8:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> OK then, let us look at what you said: “no reference frame that is not
>>>> moving relative to the ground is inertial.”
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree that this is equivalent to “a reference frame that is not
>>>> moving relative to the ground is not (an) inertial (one)”?
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>> OK, then:
>>
>>>> Regardless of whether you agree, please explain why you think that the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> statement that you agree with would be true in special relativity
>>>> (which was the framework of discussion).
>
> Request declined.
OK, then I have to tell you upfront and in public that you have posted
nonsense. An inertial frame of reference (in special relativity; in general
relativity, globally inertial frames of reference do not exist) is one in
which Newton’s laws apply; that is, one whose relative velocity is constant
and thus one whose relative acceleration is zero.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is moving “relative to the ground”
(which “ground”?). For if it is not moving “relative to the ground”, its
relative velocity is constantly zero, so its relative acceleration is zero,
*too*, and therefore it it is *by definition* an inertial frame of
reference. Which contradicts your statement.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 14:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne904o$p8c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381168 |
On 4/8/2016 1:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > OK, then I have to tell you upfront and in public that you have posted > nonsense. An inertial frame of reference (in special relativity; in general > relativity, globally inertial frames of reference do not exist) is one in > which Newton’s laws apply; Yes. > that is, one whose relative velocity is constant > and thus one whose relative acceleration is zero. Relative to what? > > Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is moving “relative to the ground” > (which “ground”?). For if it is not moving “relative to the ground”, its > relative velocity is constantly zero, so its relative acceleration is zero, > *too*, and therefore it it is*by definition* an inertial frame of > reference. Which contradicts your statement. So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the ground, then this reference frame is inertial? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 00:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7162301.FNxHqmrUfh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #381169 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/8/2016 1:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> OK, then I have to tell you upfront and in public that you have posted >> nonsense. An inertial frame of reference (in special relativity; in >> general relativity, globally inertial frames of reference do not exist) >> is one in which Newton’s laws apply; > > Yes. > >> that is, one whose relative velocity is constant >> and thus one whose relative acceleration is zero. > > Relative to what? Any other inertial frame of reference. >> Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is moving “relative to the ground” >> (which “ground”?). For if it is not moving “relative to the ground”, its >> relative velocity is constantly zero, so its relative acceleration is >> zero, *too*, and therefore it it is*by definition* an inertial frame of >> reference. Which contradicts your statement. > > So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is > at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the > ground, then this reference frame is inertial? In *special* relativity: yes. And I do not think that is only my position. PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 15:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <needpk$at5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381178 |
On 4/8/2016 5:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/8/2016 1:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> OK, then I have to tell you upfront and in public that you have posted >>> nonsense. An inertial frame of reference (in special relativity; in >>> general relativity, globally inertial frames of reference do not exist) >>> is one in which Newton’s laws apply; >> >> Yes. >> >>> that is, one whose relative velocity is constant >>> and thus one whose relative acceleration is zero. >> >> Relative to what? > > Any other inertial frame of reference. OK. > >>> Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is moving “relative to the ground” >>> (which “ground”?). For if it is not moving “relative to the ground”, its >>> relative velocity is constantly zero, so its relative acceleration is >>> zero, *too*, and therefore it it is*by definition* an inertial frame of >>> reference. Which contradicts your statement. >> >> So in your position, if there is a reference frame in which an apple is >> at rest, and that apple is sitting on a table that is anchored to the >> ground, then this reference frame is inertial? > > In *special* relativity: yes. And I do not think that is only my position. A reference frame tied to the ground on a rotating earth will exhibit pseudoforces like centrifugal and coriolis. I think if you will look in most books on classical mechanics, such as the one by Symon, you'll see that this is not an inertial reference frame either classically or by special relativity. > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web