Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382346 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 347 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Cully When <cullywhen@invalid.net> - 2016-04-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 17:15 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:17 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 07:56 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 23:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 14:03 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 15:40 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 14:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-29 20:37 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-30 05:28 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 08:59 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:46 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 10:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 05:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 03:35 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 07:58 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 21:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 03:45 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-01 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:12 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 09:54 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 19:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-03 03:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-11 11:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 06:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-12 08:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 05:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 09:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 13:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 08:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 15:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 21:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-15 09:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-15 20:46 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-16 06:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-17 01:59 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 02:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 22:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 02:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 10:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-18 09:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 18:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-18 19:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 06:41 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 22:18 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 23:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 03:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-20 08:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 13:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-21 16:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 19:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 09:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:31 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 03:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 09:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 22:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 17:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-24 19:52 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-26 06:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-27 12:03 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-30 13:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 04:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 05:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:08 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-31 08:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 00:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-01 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-04 20:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 05:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 02:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-08 09:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 10:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 18:03 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-09 16:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 04:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 11:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-10 16:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 06:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 21:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 04:09 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 13:20 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 09:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 10:13 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 20:16 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 14:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 15:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 16:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 17:12 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 17:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 22:30 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-12 23:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-13 06:02 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 01:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 04:22 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 04:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 05:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 06:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 19:13 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-14 21:34 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-14 08:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 09:49 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 13:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 17:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:39 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 21:10 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:31 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-18 10:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 04:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 11:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 16:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 18:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-19 18:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 20:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 14:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 23:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 10:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-15 11:29 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-15 23:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 00:15 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-14 05:34 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-13 15:59 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again tomyee3@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-11 09:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 15:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-12 10:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 20:37 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 11:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 20:39 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 22:25 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 20:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 23:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-09 17:47 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-01 06:38 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 21:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:57 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-17 17:48 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:52 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-28 12:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-29 17:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 03:55 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-03 13:35 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 15:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 04:06 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:06 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 10:19 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-02 10:28 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-02 09:36 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:20 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-05 13:27 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-05 17:50 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 22:05 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-08 06:41 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 03:42 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-08 12:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 12:23 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-09 19:44 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 05:21 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 08:00 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-07 15:42 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:05 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 15:02 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:23 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-09 09:45 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-10 09:10 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-10 09:20 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-11 07:00 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:25 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:14 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-28 16:15 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 20:01 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 02:50 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 19:48 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 06:53 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-30 10:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 06:41 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-01 02:16 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 15:43 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-01 21:52 +0000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 21:12 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-01 08:11 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 09:54 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:57 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 05:33 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:39 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-01 16:49 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:02 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:01 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 17:03 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:58 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-17 02:47 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-01 17:35 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-02 02:59 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-05-03 10:08 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:19 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:26 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-04 03:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:09 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:56 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:55 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 19:17 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:08 -0500
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-03 21:21 +0200
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-28 19:51 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:04 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:20 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-04-28 17:30 -0400
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 14:44 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-05-03 07:05 +1000
Re: Mercury's Precession Again John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 18:26 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 18:43 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 20:17 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 16:46 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again alsor@interia.pl - 2016-05-13 07:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:38 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Mercury's Precession Again Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 11:01 -0700
Page 1 of 18 [1] 2 3 … 18 Next page →
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:22 +1000 |
| Subject | Mercury's Precession Again |
| Message-ID | <nfqovq$1omp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cully When <cullywhen@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfqqdk$aq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:22:18 +1000, HGW wrote: > Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. Would you please stop changing your name. You are not only stupid, you spread it like a disease. My PC acts strange every time you escape my kill file. -- cully
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfqs2p$1g9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
HGW <HGW@....> writes: >Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's >AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each >cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular >instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. Ralph, since you are claiming that Mercury's precession "varies widely with each cycle", does that mean you took advantage of that offer to look up the precession data from that obscure book? If so, could you post here what "varies widely" means, such as mean and standard deviation? If not, why are you making up crap if you don't know it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca2ce13f-410d-4efb-82db-f76d548e68c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382352 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:15:37 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <HGW@....> wrote: > > Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > > AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > > cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > > instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. > > Ralph, since you are claiming that Mercury's precession "varies widely > with each cycle", does that mean you took advantage of that offer to > look up the precession data from that obscure book? What precession data? The only such occurred more than 150 years ago as compilation to Le Verrier's work. <shrug> > If so, could you post here what "varies widely" means, such as mean and > standard deviation? It is obvious that no modern observations occur due to embarrassingly mismatch of experiments versus predictions. <shrug> > If not, why are you making up crap if you don't know it? Speaking of predictions to Mercury's perihelion advance, properly understanding the Lagrangian method will tell you that it is impossible to predict so. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2Zu4U9oVk-g/_im2QBsLBQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfqto7$8hi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382356 |
On 4/27/2016 12:34 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Speaking of predictions to Mercury's perihelion advance, properly understanding the > Lagrangian method will tell you that it is impossible to predict so. <shrug> Let's see, you're the guy who says that the Lagrangian method only works with closed orbits. So the Lagrangian method, according to you, would not be able to provide the equation of motion of a walnut being dropped into a well. And you will stand by that statement even while blushing furiously. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfqs7m$3g8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382346 |
On 4/27/2016 11:22 AM, HGW wrote: > Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's > AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each > cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular > instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. Henry, you are an idiot. Classical physics is full of statistical numbers. For example, for an ideal gas at a particular temperature or pressure, you will know the average kinetic energy for the molecules in that gas, though you will not know the kinetic energy of any given molecule. Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after 22,000 years is 50%, though some of the atoms will decay in a few minutes and some of the atoms will still not have decayed after a million years. This is CLASSICAL physics. Your pathetic bleating and complaints against relativity just show what a dim grip you have on physics in general, and in turn reveals your compulsion to bleat and complain anyway. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 07:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nfrcit$12gn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382353 |
On 28/04/16 03:17, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/2016 11:22 AM, HGW wrote: >> Since Einstein's theory is claimed to accurately predict Mercury's >> AVERAGE precession and because that precession varies widely with each >> cycle, the theory is apparently incapable of predicting particular >> instances of precession and is therefore obviously wrong. > > Henry, you are an idiot. > > Classical physics is full of statistical numbers. For example, for an > ideal gas at a particular temperature or pressure, you will know the > average kinetic energy for the molecules in that gas, though you will > not know the kinetic energy of any given molecule. > > Likewise, if the half-life of a radioactive substance is 22,000 years, > you will know that the likelihood of one of the atoms decaying after > 22,000 years is 50%, though some of the atoms will decay in a few > minutes and some of the atoms will still not have decayed after a > million years. This is CLASSICAL physics. I know. I taught it for a couple of years to ignoramuses like yourself. > Your pathetic bleating and complaints against relativity just show what > a dim grip you have on physics in general, and in turn reveals your > compulsion to bleat and complain anyway. Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly why Mercury precesses at all? Many people tried to calculate it and came up with a variety of figures and reasons for its existence. They all failed because there is NO particular answer. The movement is chaotic. ...so the idiot Einstein's claim proves how low he and his collaborators really were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac6b5fa6-a821-4ed4-a419-80f01317f261@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382370 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly > why Mercury precesses at all? Are you senile that you forget the answer within weeks of having been told? There are several ways of explaining the phenomenon. The simplest, I think, is to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A ring of matter around the Sun will modify the force versus distance relationship of an orbiting planet so that it no longer precisely follows an inverse square law. Bertrand proved many years ago that there are only two central force potentials with the property that all bound orbits are also closed orbits: (1) an inverse- square central force that results in Newtonian/Keplerian ellipses (2) a radial harmonic oscillator potential, which is clearly not applicable to planetary systems. Any slight deviation in the central force potential from inverse squared will result in non-closed orbits, i.e. orbits that precess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 19:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nfslpj$odj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382377 |
On 28/04/16 13:26, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> >> Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly >> why Mercury precesses at all? > > Are you senile that you forget the answer within weeks of having been told? > > There are several ways of explaining the phenomenon. The simplest, I think, is > to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A ring of matter around the Sun will > modify the force versus distance relationship of an orbiting planet so that it > no longer precisely follows an inverse square law. ...and? > Bertrand proved many years ago that there are only two central force potentials > with the property that all bound orbits are also closed orbits: (1) an inverse- > square central force that results in Newtonian/Keplerian ellipses (2) a radial > harmonic oscillator potential, which is clearly not applicable to planetary > systems. ...and? > Any slight deviation in the central force potential from inverse squared will > result in non-closed orbits, i.e. orbits that precess. HAHHHAHA! What an idiot!....Go away please..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 04:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <711ee6ad-63c9-44d7-84e1-3cf5489b9185@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382384 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:40:07 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 28/04/16 13:26, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> > >> Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly > >> why Mercury precesses at all? > > > > Are you senile that you forget the answer within weeks of having been told? > > > > There are several ways of explaining the phenomenon. The simplest, I think, is > > to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A ring of matter around the Sun will > > modify the force versus distance relationship of an orbiting planet so that it > > no longer precisely follows an inverse square law. > > ...and? > > > Bertrand proved many years ago that there are only two central force potentials > > with the property that all bound orbits are also closed orbits: (1) an inverse- > > square central force that results in Newtonian/Keplerian ellipses (2) a radial > > harmonic oscillator potential, which is clearly not applicable to planetary > > systems. > > ...and? > > > > Any slight deviation in the central force potential from inverse squared will > > result in non-closed orbits, i.e. orbits that precess. > > HAHHHAHA! What an idiot!....Go away please.. You laugh at that which you do not understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 23:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9094a21-c22e-4480-a2e2-5fabfda7644c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382377 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use > > exactly why Mercury precesses at all? > > The simplest, I think, is to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A > ring of matter around the Sun will modify the force versus distance > relationship of an orbiting planet so that it no longer precisely > follows an inverse square law. Dumb ass, PD. What you have credited Gauss's claim about this ring approach does not even satisfy Gauss's law since every ring is outside of Mercury's orbit. <shrug> > [rest of bullshit snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <846e33cb-20b4-4505-a7ce-6645bcb4e105@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382447 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use > > > exactly why Mercury precesses at all? > > > > The simplest, I think, is to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A > > ring of matter around the Sun will modify the force versus distance > > relationship of an orbiting planet so that it no longer precisely > > follows an inverse square law. > > Dumb ass, PD. What you have credited Gauss's claim about this ring approach > does not even satisfy Gauss's law since every ring is outside of Mercury's > orbit. <shrug> Koobee, Koobee, Koobee! How do you manage to be so IGNORANT? Gauss's ring approximation for simplifying the computation of planetary precession has nothing to do with Gauss's Theorem. Gauss' name is connected with many laws, theorems, calculation methods and so forth. FOR EXAMPLE - Gauss' Theorem relates the flux of a vector field through a surface to the vector field inside the surface. - Gauss' Law relates the distribution of electric charge to the resulting electric field. - Gaussian Distribution is a probability distribution that has nothing to do with Gauss's theorem. - Gauss' Method is used for preliminary orbit determination. It has nothing to do with Gauss' Theorem - Gauss-Markov theorem deals with linear regression models and has nothing to do with Gauss' Theorem - Gauss-Jordan elimination is used to solve a system of linear equations and has nothing to do with Gauss' Theorem > > > [rest of bullshit snipped] Not bullshit at all, Koobee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f45e2ec-f5ee-4360-b5f8-4c2a1acf5b62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382496 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Dumb ass, PD. What you have credited Gauss's claim about this ring > > approach does not even satisfy Gauss's law since every ring is > > outside of Mercury's orbit. <shrug> > > Koobee, Koobee, Koobee! How do you manage to be so IGNORANT? Typical style of PD whining. <shrug> > Gauss's ring approximation for simplifying the computation of > planetary precession has nothing to do with Gauss's Theorem. OK, let's listen to how PD is attempting to circumventing Gauss's law. <shrug> > Gauss' name is connected with many laws, theorems, calculation > methods and so forth. Typical excuse to cover up one's deep ignorance. <shrug> > FOR EXAMPLE > - Gauss' Theorem relates the flux of a vector field through a surface to the > vector field inside the surface. > - Gauss' Law relates the distribution of electric charge to the resulting > electric field. > - Gaussian Distribution is a probability distribution that has nothing to do > with Gauss's theorem. > - Gauss' Method is used for preliminary orbit determination. It has nothing > to do with Gauss' Theorem > - Gauss-Markov theorem deals with linear regression models and has nothing to > do with Gauss' Theorem > - Gauss-Jordan elimination is used to solve a system of linear equations and > has nothing to do with Gauss' Theorem <yawn> That is a very pathetic attempt of overturning Gauss's law. <shrug> > Not bullshit at all, Koobee. That still sounds like bullshit to Koobee Wublee. If PD wishes to challenge Gauss's law, PD needs more solid arguments rather bullshit. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 23:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d29ccb0-15b6-4671-a5ee-eaa72b558e69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382512 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:34:04 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Gauss's ring approximation for simplifying the computation of > > planetary precession has nothing to do with Gauss's Theorem. > > OK, let's listen to how PD is attempting to circumventing Gauss's law. <shrug> Since this is not an electric fields problem, I presume that you mean, by "Gauss's Law", what most others would be careful to express as "Gauss' Law for Gravity", both of which are direct consequences of "Gauss' Theorem", or the "Divergence Theorem". Consider the Sun, Mercury, and a uniform circular ring of matter, centered on the Sun, in the plane of Mercury's orbit having the mass of Earth and a radius equal to 1 AU. Please state precisely what you mean by "attempting to circumvent Gauss's law" when I describe this setup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13e4f357-f0f5-4896-b3e6-311ea3941616@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382447 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:58:00 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use > > > exactly why Mercury precesses at all? > > > > The simplest, I think, is to consider Gauss's ring approximation. A > > ring of matter around the Sun will modify the force versus distance > > relationship of an orbiting planet so that it no longer precisely > > follows an inverse square law. > > Dumb ass, PD. What you have credited Gauss's claim about this ring approach > does not even satisfy Gauss's law since every ring is outside of Mercury's > orbit. <shrug> 1) I believe that you are confusing a circular *ring* of matter with a spherical *shell* of matter. 2) I believe that you are confusing Gauss' law for gravity with Newton's shell theorem. That's the only way that I can make sense of your recent rants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfsu60$32k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #382370 |
On 27.04.2016 23:56, HGW wrote: > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly > why Mercury precesses at all? > > Many people tried to calculate it and came up with a variety of figures > and reasons for its existence. They all failed because there is NO > particular answer. The movement is chaotic. You are obviously talking of the Newtonian calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercury due to the pull of the other planets. Here are a few (of very many) calculations of the Newtonian prediction for the perihelion precession due to the pull of the planets. https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf In 1859 Le Verrier predicted 527 arc sec per century. https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf In 1959 Clemens predicted 531.53 arc sec per century. https://paulba.no/paper/Price_Rush.pdf In 1974 Price and Rush predicted 531.9 arc sec per century. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html A modern calculation predicts 532 arc sec per century The (very small) difference between the calculations are mostly caused by differences in data like planetary masses, etc. (Le Verrier's data for the planetary masses were a bit off) I challenge you to give one example of a calculation that divert significantly from the calculations above. Who "failed because there is NO particular answer"? Since the observed value is ~575 arcsec/century the Newtonian prediction is less than 8%,(43"/century) too small, a discrepancy which is exactly explained by relativistic effects. Only a complete moron can claim that the precession is chaotic and unpredictable when it factually is predicted to be exactly what is observed. > > ...so the idiot Einstein's claim proves how low he and his collaborators > really were. > Since your claim is that the Newtonian prediction is unpredictable and chaotic, shouldn't you rather blame Newton? Einstein never calculated how the pull from planets affects the orbit of Mercury. All Einstein did was to calculate what the precession would be if the other planets were not there. The answer is 43 arc secs per year. And that explains why the Newtonian calculation is 43 arc sec per year off. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5dbf74a-bf34-417a-9654-2a1348133898@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382388 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 kwietnia 2016 14:03:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 27.04.2016 23:56, HGW wrote: > > > > Bodkin, instead of mumbling inanities, why don't you tell use exactly > > why Mercury precesses at all? > > > > Many people tried to calculate it and came up with a variety of figures > > and reasons for its existence. They all failed because there is NO > > particular answer. The movement is chaotic. > > You are obviously talking of the Newtonian calculations > of the perihelion precession of Mercury due to the pull > of the other planets. > > Here are a few (of very many) calculations of the Newtonian prediction > for the perihelion precession due to the pull of the planets. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf > In 1859 Le Verrier predicted 527 arc sec per century. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf > In 1959 Clemens predicted 531.53 arc sec per century. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Price_Rush.pdf > In 1974 Price and Rush predicted 531.9 arc sec per century. > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html > A modern calculation predicts 532 arc sec per century > > The (very small) difference between the calculations are > mostly caused by differences in data like planetary masses, etc. > (Le Verrier's data for the planetary masses were a bit off) > > I challenge you to give one example of a calculation > that divert significantly from the calculations above. > Who "failed because there is NO particular answer"? > > Since the observed value is ~575 arcsec/century > the Newtonian prediction is less than 8%,(43"/century) too small, > a discrepancy which is exactly explained by relativistic effects. > > Only a complete moron can claim that the precession > is chaotic and unpredictable when it factually > is predicted to be exactly what is observed. > > > > > ...so the idiot Einstein's claim proves how low he and his collaborators > > really were. > > > > Since your claim is that the Newtonian prediction is > unpredictable and chaotic, shouldn't you rather blame Newton? > > Einstein never calculated how the pull from planets > affects the orbit of Mercury. > All Einstein did was to calculate what the precession > would be if the other planets were not there. > The answer is 43 arc secs per year. > > And that explains why the Newtonian calculation is > 43 arc sec per year off. That is nonobservable in any way. You should compute the fill preccesion of Mercury: 570 arcsecs, using the GR model for the whole Sol. sys.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 15:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D6-dndUdT5HT6L_KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382406 |
On 4/28/16 4/28/16 12:20 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > You should compute the fill preccesion of Mercury: > 570 arcsecs, using the GR model for the whole Sol. sys. That is in essence what was done. For all objects in the solar system except the sun, GR is indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics in the effect on Mercury's orbit. So while they CALLED it a "Newtonian calculation", it is also a GR calculation. While GR is a nonlinear theory, the relevant approximation to it is linear. So this overall approach is valid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a5c6425-843c-4c0d-9929-e69e7c20a0f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382420 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 kwietnia 2016 22:40:48 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 4/28/16 4/28/16 12:20 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > You should compute the fill preccesion of Mercury: > > 570 arcsecs, using the GR model for the whole Sol. sys. > > That is in essence what was done. For all objects in the solar system except the > sun, GR is indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics in the effect on Mercury's > orbit. So while they CALLED it a "Newtonian calculation", it is also a GR > calculation. > > While GR is a nonlinear theory, the relevant approximation to it is linear. So > this overall approach is valid. And what of that? If the linearized version of the GR is sufficient, then you should show it explicitly, like in the Newton's it is done: Fij = sum Gmi mj/r^3 x r; where: r = ri - rj, etc. For GR: Fij = ? finish this and then use in a numerical simulation... of the whole solar system: 9 planets + the Sun; then we compare the results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d794bd71-8530-44bf-8e7f-13c49da83a48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382420 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:40:48 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/28/16, 12:20 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > You should compute the fill preccesion of Mercury: > > 570 arcsecs, using the GR model for the whole Sol. sys. There is no valid model as explained by the following. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2Zu4U9oVk-g/_im2QBsLBQAJ > For all objects in the solar system except the sun, GR is > indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics in the effect on Mercury's > orbit. So while they CALLED it a "Newtonian calculation", it is also a GR > calculation. So, Tom is attributing to GR's so-called success on its capability of stealing Newtonian credits. This should not be a valid confirmation in science. <shrug> > While GR is a nonlinear theory, the relevant approximation to it is > linear. So this overall approach is valid. Notice Tom avoids the mathematics involved but loves to hand-waive it away as something to suit for the proliferation of the religion of relativity. With that said, it si time to remind the Orwellian indoctrination played out in the academics. <shrug> ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NOISE IS COHERENCY ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS HISTORY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** RELIGION IS SCIENCE ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** DEIFICATION IS ADMIRATION ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** SPECULATION IS REALITY ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION ** INDOCTRINATION IS RATIONALIZATION ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION ** MISAPPLICATION IS PREDICTION ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 18 [1] 2 3 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web