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 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5d3eab2-f30a-4fcd-b057-a4c3d4ac6086@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383128 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 9 maja 2016 18:22:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 5/9/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On 5/7/2016 3:41 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all > >>> over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. > > > >> Nice of you to know experimental results even before they are published. > > > > Mercury is making a transit of the sun right now, which will add a couple > > more data points which will be more coffin nails for Ralph's discredited > > BaThwater theory. Not that he will notice. > > > > Are you sure it's making a transit? After all, the orbit of Mercury is > so randomized by the influences of the other planets, who knows when it > will ever be seen to transit the sun again? LOL. I see you, as any standardised child of banana, have still a great problem to distinguish the factual things, with the pseudoscientific improvisations, interpretations, iluminations, like the curved space.. wrt of the Gods pussy, or the relative slowing time geometric projections on the timeplane , etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 09:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngr5cs$1plt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #383128 |
On 10/05/16 02:23, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/9/2016 10:02 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/7/2016 3:41 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> No doubt they have already found that its precession is wandering all >>>> over the place from orbit to orbit... but they wont tell anyone. >> >>> Nice of you to know experimental results even before they are published. >> >> Mercury is making a transit of the sun right now, which will add a couple >> more data points which will be more coffin nails for Ralph's discredited >> BaThwater theory. Not that he will notice. >> > > Are you sure it's making a transit? After all, the orbit of Mercury is > so randomized by the influences of the other planets, who knows when it > will ever be seen to transit the sun again? LOL. Bodkin, you have no idea of scale. Mercury will transit part of the sun quite often as predicted by Newton..maybe 5% of the time. Its orbit plane will not move much in many centuries. Precessional anomalies are orders of magnitude smaller and are much harder to measure. They are certainly unpredictable, even by the idiot Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XMednSwIbZuoc6zKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #383170 |
On 5/9/16 5/9/16 - 6:10 PM, HGW wrote: > Mercury will transit part of the sun quite > often as predicted by Newton..maybe 5% of the time. It is continually amazing to me how ignorant and STUPID you are. You prefer your own GUESSES and FANTASIES over actual facts. Your "maybe 5% of the time" is OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG -- mercury transits the sun 13-14 times per century, each lasting from 2 to 6 hours. Their rarity is well known, except to fools like yourself. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 07:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngti5a$1c97$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #383201 |
On 11/05/16 00:20, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/9/16 5/9/16 - 6:10 PM, HGW wrote: >> Mercury will transit part of the sun quite often as predicted by >> Newton..maybe 5% of the time. > > It is continually amazing to me how ignorant and STUPID you are. You > prefer your own GUESSES and FANTASIES over actual facts. Your "maybe > 5% of the time" is OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG -- mercury transits the sun > 13-14 times per century, each lasting from 2 to 6 hours. Their rarity > is well known, except to fools like yourself. Ok, accepted, I did a rough estimate of the time it would transit the ecliptic. I overlooked the fact that the Earth had to be in the right spot to see it. There will be a transit in about every 7% of a century. Note, some partial transits will last only minutes. so your figures are obviously wrong too. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00d73032-5c8b-4df2-8c4f-c574961415b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383223 |
El martes, 10 de mayo de 2016, 18:00:31 (UTC-3), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 11/05/16 00:20, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 5/9/16 5/9/16 - 6:10 PM, HGW wrote: > >> Mercury will transit part of the sun quite often as predicted by > >> Newton..maybe 5% of the time. > > > > It is continually amazing to me how ignorant and STUPID you are. You > > prefer your own GUESSES and FANTASIES over actual facts. Your "maybe > > 5% of the time" is OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG -- mercury transits the sun > > 13-14 times per century, each lasting from 2 to 6 hours. Their rarity > > is well known, except to fools like yourself. > > Ok, accepted, I did a rough estimate of the time it would transit the > ecliptic. I overlooked the fact that the Earth had to be in the right > spot to see it. > > There will be a transit in about every 7% of a century. Priceless!!!!! > > Note, some partial transits will last only minutes. so your figures are > obviously wrong too. > > Priceless!!!! For sure a top candidate to be named King of Moronica
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad553738-4710-42a6-a743-6f1cd8b14f56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382423 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > [#[ As is well known, a 1/r^2 central force has elliptical orbits > with no precession. > > [@] The fact that the other planets all orbit in essentially the > same plane and direction as mercury is important. Are you sure about that last comment? Gauss' Ring Approximation for the computation of precession in its simplest form substitutes a circular ring of equal diameter to a perturbing planet's orbit with the planet's mass distributed equally around the ring. More sophisticated variants of Gauss' method use elliptical rings and a non-uniform distribution of mass. The rings have no directionality. The ring approximation works because a perturbing planet orbits many, many times for each revolution of the perihelion through 360 degrees, so that its gravitational influence is effectively blurred out so far as the perihelion is concerned. I could try developing a simulation, but between tutoring my friend's daughter in calculus and chemistry, doing physical therapy with my wife, studying AngularJS and Bootstrap etc. I just don't see how I can make the time. :-( My prediction is that a simulated "Mercury" will precess in the same direction regardless of whether an outer planet orbits normally or in a retrograde direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7134794f-2d22-4eff-8b43-a30b7f671a17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382500 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Are you sure about that last comment? Gauss' Ring Approximation for the > computation of precession in its simplest form substitutes a circular ring > of equal diameter to a perturbing planet's orbit with the planet's mass > distributed equally around the ring. More sophisticated variants of Gauss' > method use elliptical rings and a non-uniform distribution of mass. Nonsense! This approach fails Gauss's law. <shrug> > The rings have no directionality. The ring approximation works because a > perturbing planet orbits many, many times for each revolution of the > Perihelion through 360 degrees, so that its gravitational influence is > effectively blurred out so far as the perihelion is concerned. You are very confused believing in myths. <shrug> > I could try developing a simulation, but between tutoring my friend's > daughter in calculus and chemistry, What's the matter? Being a director rewriting brainwashing textbooks to the next generations allows you with a lot of free time? <shrug> > doing physical therapy with my wife, You rednecks never physically exercised in your youth and now are paying the price. <shrug> > studying AngularJS and Bootstrap etc. You stupid or what stumbling on such simple topics. <shrug> > I just don't see how I can make the time. :-( You certainly have a lot of time bullshitting in these newsgroup. <shrug> > My prediction is that a simulated "Mercury" will precess in the same > direction regardless of whether an outer planet orbits normally or in > a retrograde direction. You are not the only smart ass. If that task can be achieved, some college cock-sucking doctorate would have done so. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PYydnQs5Q9ZM77vKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382500 |
On 4/29/16 4/29/16 7:25 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [#[ As is well known, a 1/r^2 central force has elliptical orbits >> with no precession. >> >> [@] The fact that the other planets all orbit in essentially the >> same plane and direction as mercury is important. > > Are you sure about that last comment? Yes. Major forces from other planets that are out-of-plane would make mercury's orbit non-planar, and the whole notion of "precession of the perihelion" would not apply. Ditto for all the planets. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <daf2a8f1-aebc-4d53-b12f-8f5664cfcc1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382609 |
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:19:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/29/16 4/29/16 7:25 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >> [#[ As is well known, a 1/r^2 central force has elliptical orbits > >> with no precession. > >> > >> [@] The fact that the other planets all orbit in essentially the > >> same plane and direction as mercury is important. > > > > Are you sure about that last comment? > > Yes. Major forces from other planets that are out-of-plane would make mercury's > orbit non-planar, and the whole notion of "precession of the perihelion" would > not apply. Ditto for all the planets. > > > Tom Roberts I've been saying this for years- planets are not on the same plane- which well explains the classical problem of Roemer and Jupiter's moons, concerning a logical and astronomical measure of the speed of light. It does not exist in fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45bfab39-c3f1-4113-87bc-4a777364406b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382609 |
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:19:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/29/16 4/29/16 7:25 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >> [#[ As is well known, a 1/r^2 central force has elliptical orbits > >> with no precession. > >> > >> [@] The fact that the other planets all orbit in essentially the > >> same plane and direction as mercury is important. > > > > Are you sure about that last comment? > > Yes. Major forces from other planets that are out-of-plane would make mercury's > orbit non-planar, and the whole notion of "precession of the perihelion" would > not apply. Ditto for all the planets. Sorry, I wasn't clear. Whether a perturbing planet orbited in-plane versus out-of-plane would of course make a considerable amount of difference. My question was whether the precession rate would be much affected by whether the perturbing planet orbited in a pro-grade versus retro-grade fashion. The same Gaussian ring approximation would apply to either case, were I attempting to calculate the precession rate by hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 06:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nftquf$s65$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382388 |
On 28/04/16 22:03, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 27.04.2016 23:56, HGW wrote: >> 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. I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. > 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 don't care what they tried to predict. They had no hope. There is no particular answer and even with today's best computers the overall influence of the other planets on an elliptical orbit would be impossible to predict for more than a few orbits. > 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"? Like i said, they had no hope.. > 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. Maths cannot cause physical effects. If such exist they are purely Newtonian and will be explainable in Newtonian terms. GR is on par with Earth centrism and is likely to fluke a few correct Newtonian effects occasionally. > Only a complete moron can claim that the precession is chaotic and > unpredictable when it factually is predicted to be exactly what is > observed. It is wrongly predicted and wrongly observed. Read the papers your idiot prokaryotic colleague referred to. They typify attempts by desperate dingleberry conspirators to find just one piece of evidence that might support Einstein. Note, anything that has even the slightest possibility of favouring GR will be published. >> ...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? Nobody in Newton's time could have possibly predicted Mercury's precession...it is still impossible to predict. > 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. Which year was that? It is off by a different amount each year...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 16:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r8idnT6YD7rq4L_KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382414 |
On 4/28/16 4/28/16 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: > I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small > disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. While true as far as this goes, you are clearly ignorant of an important point: for a given chaotic system one can COMPUTE an average duration over which the system is predictable within a given accuracy. For the solar system and typical astronomical accuracy, it turns out that the solar system is predictable for MILLIONS OF YEARS. As usual, you use your PROFOUND IGNORANCE of basic physics to "justify" your claims. No real scientist would do that. Neither would any sensible or honest person. > I don't care what they tried to predict. They had no hope. There is no > particular answer and even with today's best computers the overall influence of > the other planets on an elliptical orbit would be impossible to predict for more > than a few orbits. This is just plain not true, and your IGNORANCE shows. Mercury's orbit is predictable to reasonable accuracy for MILLIONS OF ORBITS. As you are so profoundly ignorant, I'll point out that this is ENORMOUSLY longer than human observations of mercury's precession. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 20:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nfvbdr$ura$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382424 |
On 29/04/16 07:15, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/28/16 4/28/16 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: >> I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small >> disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. > > While true as far as this goes, you are clearly ignorant of an important > point: for a given chaotic system one can COMPUTE an average duration > over which the system is predictable within a given accuracy. For the > solar system and typical astronomical accuracy, it turns out that the > solar system is predictable for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Don't be silly Tom. We are talking about minute changes. Planetary orbits are regularly wobbling all over the place. One of the principal causes of Mercury's precession is the pressure of the solar wind. I can't see that mentioned in Einstein's silly little equation. > As usual, you use your PROFOUND IGNORANCE of basic physics to "justify" > your claims. No real scientist would do that. Neither would any sensible > or honest person. > > >> I don't care what they tried to predict. They had no hope. There is no >> particular answer and even with today's best computers the overall >> influence of >> the other planets on an elliptical orbit would be impossible to >> predict for more >> than a few orbits. > > This is just plain not true, and your IGNORANCE shows. Mercury's orbit > is predictable to reasonable accuracy for MILLIONS OF ORBITS. Not true. Your age is starting to show, Tom... > As you are so profoundly ignorant, I'll point out that this > is ENORMOUSLY longer than human observations of mercury's > precession. It is barely observable at the best of times. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dddd4b9-dff7-41ea-a909-5a2a52c9c89f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382455 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:01:34 PM UTC+2, HGW wrote: > On 29/04/16 07:15, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 4/28/16 4/28/16 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: > >> I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small > >> disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. > > > > While true as far as this goes, you are clearly ignorant of an important > > point: for a given chaotic system one can COMPUTE an average duration > > over which the system is predictable within a given accuracy. For the > > solar system and typical astronomical accuracy, it turns out that the > > solar system is predictable for MILLIONS OF YEARS. > > Don't be silly Tom. We are talking about minute changes. Planetary > orbits are regularly wobbling all over the place. Yes but the devil is in the actual values of these quantities. And Tom just told you the relevant predictability here happens to be on the order of millions of years. You seem to think the word "chaotic" means "non-tractable in any form, ever". Pick a good book on classical mechanics, give yourself a few years to learn this stuff. Last time I checked, you couldn't even write down the equations of motion for a simple 1-dimensional problem, so for you it's a long way to question chaotic systems. There are no shortcuts to competence. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 02:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ngakru$mjl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382692 |
On 03/05/16 19:14, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:01:34 PM UTC+2, HGW wrote: >> >> Don't be silly Tom. We are talking about minute changes. Planetary >> orbits are regularly wobbling all over the place. > > Yes but the devil is in the actual values of these quantities. And Tom just > told you the relevant predictability here happens to be on the order of > millions of years. You are talking crap, as usual. Mercury's orbit is chaotic every cycle. > You seem to think the word "chaotic" means "non-tractable in any form, ever". > Pick a good book on classical mechanics, give yourself a few years to learn > this stuff. Last time I checked, you couldn't even write down the equations > of motion for a simple 1-dimensional problem, so for you it's a long way > to question chaotic systems. > > There are no shortcuts to competence. There is no cure for your innate stupidity. > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 17:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfu1t6$18a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382414 |
On 4/28/2016 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: > > I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small > disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. Henry, I know it is your quest to find reasons why no comparison should be done between data and experiment. You love the thought that experiments are too hard to do reliably, and therefore there is no good data to test theories against at all. This is why you bitch about average values and say that theories should be able to predict the values of the individual members of a distribution. This is why chaos sounds lovely, the thought that the slightest perturbation could make any future prediction hopelessly intractable. I'll just mention that your comparison to variable star brightness curves is worthless and means nothing, because the data curves themselves are hopelessly confounded by dispersion by varying density in the atmosphere, scattering by passing interstellar dust, and the random and chaotic variations in the speed of light introduced by the interstellar medium. So your work is a pile of garbage, by your own critique. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 19:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nfvalh$tlo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382431 |
On 29/04/16 08:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/28/2016 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: >> >> I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small >> disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. > > Henry, I know it is your quest to find reasons why no comparison should > be done between data and experiment. You love the thought that > experiments are too hard to do reliably, and therefore there is no good > data to test theories against at all. This is why you bitch about > average values and say that theories should be able to predict the > values of the individual members of a distribution. This is why chaos > sounds lovely, the thought that the slightest perturbation could make > any future prediction hopelessly intractable. > > I'll just mention that your comparison to variable star brightness > curves is worthless and means nothing, because the data curves > themselves are hopelessly confounded by dispersion by varying density in > the atmosphere, scattering by passing interstellar dust, and the random > and chaotic variations in the speed of light introduced by the > interstellar medium. So your work is a pile of garbage, by your own > critique. Bodkin, you might be quite good at banging nails into bits of wood but you are making a very poor job of trying to act like a physicist. The work I have done regarding variable stars is way over head. It is still virtually impossible to directly measure OWLS from a moving source, even a distant one but it is relatively easy to COMPARE light speeds from different sources. Distant light sources are the only ones that can be used to test Einstein's silly P2 and they clearly show that it is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 06:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfvhvn$1aam$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382454 |
On 4/29/2016 4:48 AM, HGW wrote: > On 29/04/16 08:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/28/2016 3:14 PM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> I am talking about the fact that in chaotic systems, very small >>> disturbances can result in very large changes down the track. >> >> Henry, I know it is your quest to find reasons why no comparison should >> be done between data and experiment. You love the thought that >> experiments are too hard to do reliably, and therefore there is no good >> data to test theories against at all. This is why you bitch about >> average values and say that theories should be able to predict the >> values of the individual members of a distribution. This is why chaos >> sounds lovely, the thought that the slightest perturbation could make >> any future prediction hopelessly intractable. >> >> I'll just mention that your comparison to variable star brightness >> curves is worthless and means nothing, because the data curves >> themselves are hopelessly confounded by dispersion by varying density in >> the atmosphere, scattering by passing interstellar dust, and the random >> and chaotic variations in the speed of light introduced by the >> interstellar medium. So your work is a pile of garbage, by your own >> critique. > > Bodkin, you might be quite good at banging nails into bits of wood but > you are making a very poor job of trying to act like a physicist. The > work I have done regarding variable stars is way over head. > It is still virtually impossible to directly measure OWLS from a moving > source, even a distant one but it is relatively easy to COMPARE light > speeds from different sources. > Distant light sources are the only ones that can be used to test > Einstein's silly P2 and they clearly show that it is wrong. > The more distant the source, the more uncertainty in the data. In fact, for all of the sources you have fit, the data are almost certainly hopelessly randomized by other effects, some of which I mentioned and others not mentioned being at least as important. By your own critique. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 10:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng0t6s$1ev1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382456 |
On 29/04/16 21:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/29/2016 4:48 AM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> I'll just mention that your comparison to variable star brightness >>> curves is worthless and means nothing, because the data curves >>> themselves are hopelessly confounded by dispersion by varying density in >>> the atmosphere, scattering by passing interstellar dust, and the random >>> and chaotic variations in the speed of light introduced by the >>> interstellar medium. So your work is a pile of garbage, by your own >>> critique. >> >> Bodkin, you might be quite good at banging nails into bits of wood but >> you are making a very poor job of trying to act like a physicist. The >> work I have done regarding variable stars is way over head. >> It is still virtually impossible to directly measure OWLS from a moving >> source, even a distant one but it is relatively easy to COMPARE light >> speeds from different sources. >> Distant light sources are the only ones that can be used to test >> Einstein's silly P2 and they clearly show that it is wrong. >> > > The more distant the source, the more uncertainty in the data. In fact, > for all of the sources you have fit, the data are almost certainly > hopelessly randomized by other effects, some of which I mentioned and > others not mentioned being at least as important. By your own critique. That is nonsense for the simple reason that images of very distant galaxies are remarkably clear, showing that little dispersion occurs in truly empty space. BaTh says that a degree of light speed unification occurs and is somewhat dependent on the density of fields, other EM and matter in space. It therefore occurs mainly around stars and within galactic boundaries. All light leaving a star does so at speeds close to c relative to that star because variations due to random source speeds is quickly unified in the vicinity of the star. Wavelengths are shifted in the process. If you care to search the Kepler records, you might learn something about this subject and stop making a fool of yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 06:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng25kk$10mk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382497 |
On 4/29/2016 7:11 PM, HGW wrote: > On 29/04/16 21:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/29/2016 4:48 AM, HGW wrote: > >>>> >>>> I'll just mention that your comparison to variable star brightness >>>> curves is worthless and means nothing, because the data curves >>>> themselves are hopelessly confounded by dispersion by varying >>>> density in >>>> the atmosphere, scattering by passing interstellar dust, and the random >>>> and chaotic variations in the speed of light introduced by the >>>> interstellar medium. So your work is a pile of garbage, by your own >>>> critique. >>> >>> Bodkin, you might be quite good at banging nails into bits of wood but >>> you are making a very poor job of trying to act like a physicist. The >>> work I have done regarding variable stars is way over head. >>> It is still virtually impossible to directly measure OWLS from a moving >>> source, even a distant one but it is relatively easy to COMPARE light >>> speeds from different sources. >>> Distant light sources are the only ones that can be used to test >>> Einstein's silly P2 and they clearly show that it is wrong. >>> >> >> The more distant the source, the more uncertainty in the data. In fact, >> for all of the sources you have fit, the data are almost certainly >> hopelessly randomized by other effects, some of which I mentioned and >> others not mentioned being at least as important. By your own critique. > > That is nonsense for the simple reason that images of very distant > galaxies are remarkably clear, showing that little dispersion occurs in > truly empty space. Oh. So you agree then that data trumps what your reasoning might tell you. So if your reasoning tells you that Mercury's orbit will be chaotic, but the actual DATA trumps that and indicates that it's not as chaotic as what your reasoning tells you, then one should of course go with the actual DATA? > BaTh says that a degree of light speed unification > occurs and is somewhat dependent on the density of fields, other EM and > matter in space. It therefore occurs mainly around stars and within > galactic boundaries. All light leaving a star does so at speeds close to > c relative to that star because variations due to random source speeds > is quickly unified in the vicinity of the star. Wavelengths are shifted > in the process. > > If you care to search the Kepler records, you might learn something > about this subject and stop making a fool of yourself. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web