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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaa7e13f-fae4-4dbd-b37b-b9ae541d6b2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387758 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:03:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. > > Oh dear. Then what about all your papers that purport to be experimental > proposals to measure an object's absolute motion with respect to the ether? No idiot.....my paper proposed a method to measure the absolute motion of an object wrt light which is traveling at a constant speed in the stationary ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn55js$jfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388329 |
On 7/24/2016 10:07 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:03:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. >> >> Oh dear. Then what about all your papers that purport to be experimental >> proposals to measure an object's absolute motion with respect to the ether? > > No idiot.....my paper proposed a method to measure the absolute motion of an object wrt light which is traveling > at a constant speed in the stationary ether. And hence you know the absolute motion of the object with respect to the stationary ether, via your experiment. If you know the motion of the object with respect to the light, and you know the motion of the light with respect to the stationary ether, then your experiment should tell you the motion of the object with respect to the stationary ether. But you just said that's impossible. Hence your experimental proposal is nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nltie2$2u6$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387492 |
On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS of inertial frames. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 04:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <003f534d-deaa-496c-a65a-19928ec41619@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387515 |
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > > An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > > difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. > > That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS > of inertial frames. You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the same proposed properties as an inertial frame. The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 07:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm04ab$1kl3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387562 |
On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >> >> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >> of inertial frames. > > You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the > same proposed properties as an inertial frame. A frame is not a location. > The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of > physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2154f75-63b9-4a3d-8079-a156aaf3ad9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387565 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > >>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. > >> > >> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS > >> of inertial frames. > > > > You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the > > same proposed properties as an inertial frame. > > A frame is not a location. It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. IOW an observer at rest in the ether will have the same properties as an inertial frame. > > > The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of > > physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 09:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm08ro$1slu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387568 |
On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >>>> >>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >>>> of inertial frames. >>> >>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the >>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. >> >> A frame is not a location. > > It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame is not an observer at a location, either. You have NO IDEA what a reference frame is, do you? > IOW an observer at rest in the ether will have the same properties as an inertial frame. > >> >>> The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of >>> physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-07-11 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8703ebd-0d80-4fc9-bcbb-08854d253965@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387573 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > >>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. > >>>> > >>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS > >>>> of inertial frames. > >>> > >>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the > >>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. > >> > >> A frame is not a location. > > > > It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. > > Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame > is not an observer at a location, either. Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. An observer at rest in any location in the ether can certainly set up a coordinate system in which all objects are moving within it. This coordinate system will certainly have all the properties of an inertial frame of SR. > .. > You have NO IDEA what a reference frame is, do you? > > > IOW an observer at rest in the ether will have the same properties as an inertial frame. > > > >> > >>> The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of > >>> physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2016-07-11 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0fbc$8eg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387577 |
On 7/11/2016 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >>>>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >>>>>> of inertial frames. >>>>> >>>>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the >>>>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. >>>> >>>> A frame is not a location. >>> >>> It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. >> >> Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame >> is not an observer at a location, either. > > Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to > set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. And that's bullshit, Ken. If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. > An observer at rest in > any location in the ether can certainly set up a coordinate system in which all > objects are moving within it. This coordinate system will certainly have all the > properties of an inertial frame of SR. > > >> .. >> You have NO IDEA what a reference frame is, do you? >> >>> IOW an observer at rest in the ether will have the same properties as an inertial frame. >>> >>>> >>>>> The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and the laws of >>>>> physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0gur$bkh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387587 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an >> observer to set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. > > And that's bullshit, Ken. > If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the > right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. No is not. Dr. Kenseto is perfectly right. Observer part is crucial in having a reference frame set up. Learn Physics young man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0lr8$47g$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387588 |
The nym-shifting troll <jackc@outlool.org> writes: >Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an >>> observer to set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. >> >> And that's bullshit, Ken. >> If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the >> right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. >No is not. Dr. Kenseto is perfectly right. Observer part is crucial in >having a reference frame set up. Learn Physics young man. You also don't know wtf you are talking about. Go pick a new nym again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <999adb82-9be3-4470-ba41-abc5d5ee13ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387587 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:52:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > >>>>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS > >>>>>> of inertial frames. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the > >>>>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. > >>>> > >>>> A frame is not a location. > >>> > >>> It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. > >> > >> Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame > >> is not an observer at a location, either. > > > > Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to > > set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. > > And that's bullshit, Ken. > If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the > right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. The bullshit is on your part....in any coordinate system the convention is: left to right is positive and right to left is negative. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0pcn$qkg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387597 |
On 7/11/2016 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:52:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >>>>>>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >>>>>>>> of inertial frames. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the >>>>>>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> A frame is not a location. >>>>> >>>>> It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame >>>> is not an observer at a location, either. >>> >>> Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to >>> set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. >> >> And that's bullshit, Ken. >> If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the >> right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. > > The bullshit is on your part....in any coordinate system the convention is: left to right is > positive and right to left is negative. Gee you are stupid. Sorry, Ken, but you do not know what you're talking about. This is not only false, but you've made it up. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 12:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffb9b1fc-884c-4ef8-9da3-e0378c52249c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387600 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 2:43:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:52:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/11/2016 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the > >>>>>>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS > >>>>>>>> of inertial frames. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the > >>>>>>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A frame is not a location. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame > >>>> is not an observer at a location, either. > >>> > >>> Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to > >>> set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. > >> > >> And that's bullshit, Ken. > >> If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the > >> right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. > > > > The bullshit is on your part....in any coordinate system the convention is: left to right is > > positive and right to left is negative. Gee you are stupid. > > Sorry, Ken, but you do not know what you're talking about. This is not > only false, but you've made it up. > Sorry PD you don't know what you are talking about. Also empty assertion is not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 14:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0qt2$t8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387602 |
On 7/11/2016 2:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 2:43:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 1:29 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:52:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2016 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/11/2016 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:43:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >>>>>>>>>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >>>>>>>>>> of inertial frames. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have the >>>>>>>>> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A frame is not a location. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is.....an observer stationary in any location constitute a frame of reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. A frame is not a location. A frame is not an observer. A frame >>>>>> is not an observer at a location, either. >>>>> >>>>> Then you don't have any idea what is a frame of reference. Without an observer to >>>>> set up a coordinate system there is no frame of reference. >>>> >>>> And that's bullshit, Ken. >>>> If you don't know what a reference frame is, this doesn't give you the >>>> right to MAKE UP a meaning that you like. >>> >>> The bullshit is on your part....in any coordinate system the convention is: left to right is >>> positive and right to left is negative. Gee you are stupid. >> >> Sorry, Ken, but you do not know what you're talking about. This is not >> only false, but you've made it up. >> > > Sorry PD you don't know what you are talking about. Also empty assertion is not a valid argument. > Ken, if you believe 2+3=17, then you are wrong. You can call 2+3=5 an empty assertion, and you can say that empty assertions are not valid arguments. The problem is, nobody owes you an argument for why 2+3 does not equal 17, and nobody owes you an argument for why a frame is not an observer and a frame is not a location. Nobody owes you an argument for why what you MAKE UP is just not true. What you MAKE UP is still wrong. The only path to learning what is true is READING. You don't know what a reference frame is. You don't know how to use a simple coordinate system. You don't know what the variables in the Lorentz transformation mean. You can't do simple 5th grade algebra of substituting in values for variables and then evaluating equations. And yet you claim to understand SR? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 08:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm06u7$1pn1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387565 |
On 7/11/2016 7:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 6:35 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you >>>> tell me the >>>> difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in >>>> the stationary ether. >>> >>> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >>> of inertial frames. >> >> You are wrong.....there are zillions of locations in the stationary >> ether that have the >> same proposed properties as an inertial frame. > > A frame is not a location. Ken, in just a short series of posts from the last 24 hours, you have shown that - You don't know what a reference frame is - You don't know how to use coordinates - You can't do simple algebra, substituting in values for variables in equations, even when given absolutely clear instructions on how to do it And yet, you claim to be competent in SR?? > >> The speed of light in any location of the stationary ether is >> isotropic c and the laws of >> physics are the same in any location in the stationary ether. >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0mcj$47g$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387569 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >Ken, in just a short series of posts from the last 24 hours, you have >shown that >- You don't know what a reference frame is >- You don't know how to use coordinates >- You can't do simple algebra, substituting in values for variables in >equations, even when given absolutely clear instructions on how to do it >And yet, you claim to be competent in SR?? No wonder Ken's IRT is such a failure! One thing Ken does is use his own definitions for words/phrases that physicists have different definitions for. Like calling "frames" locations. John Sefton does this as well. This leads to nothing but arguments, such as this "what is a reference frame" one, where Ken is using Ken's definition and you and others using science's definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0lgc$47g$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387562 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/9/2016 3:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the >> > difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >> That's simple. There is ONE stationary ether frame. There are MILLIONS >> of inertial frames. >You are wrong..... He is wrong. There aren't "MILLIONS" of inertial frames, there are an infinite number of them! All with any velocity you want, as long as it is constant and less than c. >there are zillions of locations in the stationary ether that have >the same proposed properties as an inertial frame. The speed of >light in any location of the stationary ether is isotropic c and >the laws of physics are the same in any location in the stationary >ether. But what about in all of those infinite number of inertial frames which have a nonzero velocity with respect to the aether frame? Do you even know the definition of an inertial frame?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 08:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <neqtfbh7qbm7crirqvasfb6k3i57dgbhq4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #380590 |
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:04:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: >On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: >> However, whilst >> Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed >> unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. >> Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an >> absolute frame without having any need to mention it. > >It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, >because the theory has no need of one. I expected somebody would say that. Believe it or not, a combimation of an absolute speed unifying frame and the Fizgerald contractions creates a situation in which the laws of physics are the same in all frames. ie., relativity. If light speeds are not uniform, that cannot be achieved. Einstein merely followed on from where Lorentz was heading. >Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 16:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dm94ghF6b9aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #380697 |
On 2/04/2016 8:42 AM, HGW wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:04:35 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> > wrote: > >> On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: >>> However, whilst >>> Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed >>> unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. >>> Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an >>> absolute frame without having any need to mention it. >> >> It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, >> because the theory has no need of one. > > I expected somebody would say that. > > Believe it or not, a combimation of an absolute speed unifying frame and the > Fizgerald contractions creates a situation in which the laws of physics are the > same in all frames. ie., relativity. If light speeds are not uniform, that > cannot be achieved. Einstein merely followed on from where Lorentz was heading. > That may be so, but it's not correct to apply a reverse derivation to relativity so as to conclude that it has an absolute frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web