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 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 02:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng2lou$1r3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382526 |
On 30/04/16 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/29/2016 7:11 PM, HGW wrote: >> That is nonsense for the simple reason that images of very distant >> galaxies are remarkably clear, showing that little dispersion occurs in >> truly empty space. > > Oh. So you agree then that data trumps what your reasoning might tell > you. So if your reasoning tells you that Mercury's orbit will be > chaotic, but the actual DATA trumps that and indicates that it's not as > chaotic as what your reasoning tells you, then one should of course go > with the actual DATA? What data?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 15:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng5pp0$rme$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382541 |
On 4/30/2016 11:16 AM, HGW wrote: > On 30/04/16 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/29/2016 7:11 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> That is nonsense for the simple reason that images of very distant >>> galaxies are remarkably clear, showing that little dispersion occurs in >>> truly empty space. >> >> Oh. So you agree then that data trumps what your reasoning might tell >> you. So if your reasoning tells you that Mercury's orbit will be >> chaotic, but the actual DATA trumps that and indicates that it's not as >> chaotic as what your reasoning tells you, then one should of course go >> with the actual DATA? > > What data? > > The orbital data for Mercury. Decades of it. Several hundred orbits. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng5tqj$u5v$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #382541 |
HGW <HGW@....> writes: >On 30/04/16 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Oh. So you agree then that data trumps what your reasoning might tell >> you. So if your reasoning tells you that Mercury's orbit will be >> chaotic, but the actual DATA trumps that and indicates that it's not as >> chaotic as what your reasoning tells you, then one should of course go >> with the actual DATA? >What data? The data on the precession of Mercury that someone offered to get for you from an obscure book, Ralph. But, of course, you were too chicken to take him up on it, and now you are pretending it doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 21:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ng303i$d9n$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #382414 |
On 28.04.2016 22:14, HGW wrote: > 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. >> >> 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 >> >> 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.. I note with interest that you can name no example of a calculation of the Newtonian prediction which divert significantly from 532 arc ecs per century. So you were wrong when you claimed: "Many people tried to calculate it and came up with a variety of figures". The truth is that many tried to calculte it and came up with approximately the same number which is very close to the observed number. >> 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. So according to Ralph: << The 43 arc sec per century predicted by GR cannot explain the 43 arc sec missing in the Newtonian prediction because Maths cannot cause physical effects. >> but Taa- Daaaa: > If such exist they are purely > Newtonian and will be explainable in Newtonian terms. Sometimes (like now) I find your naivety extremely funny. :-D > GR is on par with Earth centrism and is likely to fluke a few correct > Newtonian effects occasionally. So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge: The Newtonian prediction 532 arc sec per century for the precession caused by the pull of the other planets is utter because this precession is chaotic and unpredictable, but the 43 arc sec per century is a correct purely Newtonian prediction caused by unknown reasons. >> 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. :-D > 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. You are babbling to divert the attention from the fact that you 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? > > Nobody in Newton's time could have possibly predicted Mercury's > precession...it is still impossible to predict. But the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused by the pull from the other planets is proven to be correct. (The GR prediction for same is equal.) >> 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... Have you forgotten that you failed to give a single example of a calculation that divert significantly from 532 arc sec per year? :-D But honestly, Ralph. Isn't it about time that you realize how moronic it is to claim that something which factually is predicted and found to be in accordance with observations is "chaotic and unpredictable"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 08:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng3aib$tdq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382550 |
On 01/05/16 05:12, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 28.04.2016 22:14, HGW wrote: >>>> >>> >>> 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. > > But the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused > by the pull from the other planets is proven to be correct. > (The GR prediction for same is equal.) Look at the way the sun has been wobbling chaotically due to the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter (the sun moves oppositely and with smaller amplitude but with the same pattern) Imagine how the other planets affect Mercury!!!!! It is completely chaotic...and impossible to predict over more than a couple of years, even with luck. >>> 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... > > Have you forgotten that you failed to give a single example of > a calculation that divert significantly from 532 arc sec per year? :-D There is NO specific figure for any particular year. You are raving. > > But honestly, Henry. > Isn't it about time that you realize how moronic it is > to claim that something which factually is predicted > and found to be in accordance with observations is > "chaotic and unpredictable"? Newton's calculations were not complete. How the hell could they be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 09:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ng4co0$4h4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #382556 |
On 01.05.2016 00:11, HGW wrote: > On 01/05/16 05:12, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> But the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused >> by the pull from the other planets is proven to be correct. >> (The GR prediction for same is equal.) > > Look at the way the sun has been wobbling chaotically due to the > planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter (the sun moves > oppositely and with smaller amplitude but with the same pattern) > > Imagine how the other planets affect Mercury!!!!! > It is completely chaotic...and impossible to predict over more than a > couple of years, even with luck. Your kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact, which is that the Newtonian prediction for the precession per century caused by the pull of the other planets is proven to be correct. >> But honestly, Henry. >> Isn't it about time that you realize how moronic it is >> to claim that something which factually is predicted >> and found to be in accordance with observations is >> "chaotic and unpredictable"? > > Newton's calculations were not complete. How the hell could they be? These are facts: The Newtonian prediction for the precession caused by the pull of the other planets is 532 arc sec per century. It is complete and proven to be correct. GR's prediction for the precession caused by the other planets is the same. The additional 43 arc sec per century predicted by GR is not caused by the pull of the other planets, but is what the precession would be if the other planets weren't there. The Newtonian prediction for same is zero. Since the observed precession is 532+43=575 arc sec per century GR gets the prediction for the total precession correct, while the Newtonian prediction for same is 43 arc sec per century short. Case closed even if Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will keep kicking and screaming. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 02:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng5ci0$1m58$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382571 |
On 01/05/16 17:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 01.05.2016 00:11, HGW wrote: >> Look at the way the sun has been wobbling chaotically due to the >> planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter (the sun moves >> oppositely and with smaller amplitude but with the same pattern) >> >> Imagine how the other planets affect Mercury!!!!! It is completely >> chaotic...and impossible to predict over more than a couple of >> years, even with luck. > > Your kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact, which is that > the Newtonian prediction for the precession per century caused by > the pull of the other planets is proven to be correct. How can it be correct when no such figure exists? Precession per century will vary from one century to another. >>> But honestly, Henry. Isn't it about time that you realize how >>> moronic it is to claim that something which factually is >>> predicted and found to be in accordance with observations is >>> "chaotic and unpredictable"? >> >> Newton's calculations were not complete. How the hell could they >> be? > > These are facts: The Newtonian prediction for the precession caused > by the pull of the other planets is 532 arc sec per century. It is > complete and proven to be correct. GR's prediction for the precession > caused by the other planets is the same. > > The additional 43 arc sec per century predicted by GR is not caused > by the pull of the other planets, but is what the precession would > be if the other planets weren't there. The Newtonian prediction for > same is zero. The mathematical equations of a silly theory based on the misconception that space and time are somehow determined by the speed of light cannot possible give rise to real physical effects. Einstein obviously fiddled with his equations until he got ones that he thought produced the right answers and published them. IF the precession of Mercury over the last century was different from Newton's calculation, it only means that Newton was wrong and there are other purely Newtonian explanations for the supposed anomaly. In other words, the anomaly does not exist...and Einstein's claim to have explained it is pure bullshit. > Since the observed precession is 532+43=575 arc sec per century GR > gets the prediction for the total precession correct, while the > Newtonian prediction for same is 43 arc sec per century short. > > > Case closed even if Henry George Wilson will keep kicking and > screaming. ...Looks like I won again...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39cc4def-e0f1-4a6a-94db-0d3bddcd42ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382556 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:11:28 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> Look at the way the sun has been wobbling chaotically due to the
> planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter (the sun moves
> oppositely and with smaller amplitude but with the same pattern)
>
> Imagine how the other planets affect Mercury!!!!!
> It is completely chaotic...and impossible to predict over more than a
> couple of years, even with luck.
The calculation of the position of the barycenter involves a *trivial*
computation requiring knowledge of the mass relative to the Sun of each planet
and its position in space.
The major contributor to the wobble is Jupiter. If the major uncertainty in
knowledge of Jupiter's orbital elements is its mass, such that you know it to
only 5 significant figures, whereas you know its other orbital elements to 6 or
more figures, then you know the magnitude of the major cyclic component of the
barycenter's swings, the one with a period of 11.8618 years, to 5 significant
figures.
*** IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT ***
All of the other planets contribute to the barycenter's moment-to-moment
position via a simple additive sum.
The moment-to-moment position of the barycenter can be calculated as accurately
as we can calculate the moment-to-moment position of the planets in the Solar
System, weighted by their masses.
In the 18th-to-19th centuries, the Solar System's orbital characteristics were
already known to such accuracy that the scientific paradigm dominating research
in physics and astronomy was that of the "Clockwork Universe".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 02:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng5bg3$1kdf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382579 |
On 01/05/16 22:33, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:11:28 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> Look at the way the sun has been wobbling chaotically due to the >> planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter (the sun moves >> oppositely and with smaller amplitude but with the same pattern) >> >> Imagine how the other planets affect Mercury!!!!! >> It is completely chaotic...and impossible to predict over more than a >> couple of years, even with luck. > > The calculation of the position of the barycenter involves a *trivial* > computation requiring knowledge of the mass relative to the Sun of each planet > and its position in space. > > The major contributor to the wobble is Jupiter. If the major uncertainty in > knowledge of Jupiter's orbital elements is its mass, such that you know it to > only 5 significant figures, whereas you know its other orbital elements to 6 or > more figures, then you know the magnitude of the major cyclic component of the > barycenter's swings, the one with a period of 11.8618 years, to 5 significant > figures. > *** IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT *** That part is relatively simple. The hard part is to predict how barycentre movements affect the orbits of all the planets....as well as he interactions between them. > All of the other planets contribute to the barycenter's moment-to-moment > position via a simple additive sum. > > The moment-to-moment position of the barycenter can be calculated as accurately > as we can calculate the moment-to-moment position of the planets in the Solar > System, weighted by their masses. Idiot! What you cannot get into your head is the fact that the movements of the barycentre affect the orbits of all the planets...and everything else in the universe for that matter. The whole system is chaotic and could not possibly be calculated. The precession of mercury is minute. It is almost impossible to measure at the best of times. Attempts to monitor it over a single orbits using constant light speed would produce a whole stack of misleading results. > In the 18th-to-19th centuries, the Solar System's orbital characteristics were > already known to such accuracy that the scientific paradigm dominating research > in physics and astronomy was that of the "Clockwork Universe". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BNidnR2qCdlG5LvKnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #382591 |
On 5/1/16 5/1/16 11:39 AM, HGW wrote: > On 01/05/16 22:33, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> The calculation of the position of the barycenter involves a *trivial* >> computation requiring knowledge of the mass relative to the Sun of each planet >> and its position in space.[...] >> The major contributor to the wobble is Jupiter. > > That part is relatively simple. The hard part is to predict how barycentre > movements affect the orbits of all the planets....as well as he interactions > between them. Only to people who don't know how to perform such a calculation. This is just a straightforward case of a self-consistent computation. There are only a few dozen objects involved, which is no problem at all for modern computers and software. My particle-simulation program can calculate space-charge forces among hundreds to thousands of particles. These are pair-wise E&M forces that are much more complicated than gravity. The code specific to this is less than 800 lines of C++. (There is also an approximation that can handle millions of particles.) > What you cannot get into your head is the fact that the movements of the > barycentre affect the orbits of all the planets. Well there's a major part of your confusion. Sensible models of the solar system use barycentric coordinates, for the simple reason that they are inertial. Sun-centered coordinates are not inertial and thus MUCH more complicated. > The whole system is chaotic and could not possibly be > calculated. Your claims are refuted by the models that are actually calculated. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -- George Bernard Shaw And your utter IGNORANCE of what "chaotic" actually means completely destroys your "argument". Stop basing your claims on your personal IGNORANCE and go LEARN something about the subject! Your GUESSES are wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e053555-680c-4995-a6ea-a8acb869ee54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382613 |
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:49:18 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/1/16 5/1/16 11:39 AM, HGW wrote: > > On 01/05/16 22:33, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> The calculation of the position of the barycenter involves a *trivial* > >> computation requiring knowledge of the mass relative to the Sun of each planet > >> and its position in space.[...] > >> The major contributor to the wobble is Jupiter. > > > > That part is relatively simple. The hard part is to predict how barycentre > > movements affect the orbits of all the planets....as well as he interactions > > between them. > > Only to people who don't know how to perform such a calculation. This is just a > straightforward case of a self-consistent computation. There are only a few > dozen objects involved, which is no problem at all for modern computers and > software. > > My particle-simulation program can calculate space-charge > forces among hundreds to thousands of particles. These are > pair-wise E&M forces that are much more complicated than > gravity. The code specific to this is less than 800 lines of > C++. (There is also an approximation that can handle millions > of particles.) > > > > What you cannot get into your head is the fact that the movements of the > > barycentre affect the orbits of all the planets. > > Well there's a major part of your confusion. Sensible models of the solar system > use barycentric coordinates, for the simple reason that they are inertial. > Sun-centered coordinates are not inertial and thus MUCH more complicated. > > > > The whole system is chaotic and could not possibly be > > calculated. > > Your claims are refuted by the models that are actually calculated. > > "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those > who are doing it." -- George Bernard Shaw > > And your utter IGNORANCE of what "chaotic" actually means completely destroys > your "argument". > > Stop basing your claims on your personal IGNORANCE and go LEARN something about > the subject! Your GUESSES are wrong. > > > Tom Roberts It really is only trying to derive a macroscopic unified measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 10:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <7cqfibl1nnqb0ss5i9j613u0hnc3kd889a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #382613 |
On Sun, 1 May 2016 16:49:15 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 5/1/16 5/1/16 11:39 AM, HGW wrote: >> On 01/05/16 22:33, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> The calculation of the position of the barycenter involves a *trivial* >>> computation requiring knowledge of the mass relative to the Sun of each planet >>> and its position in space.[...] >>> The major contributor to the wobble is Jupiter. >> >> That part is relatively simple. The hard part is to predict how barycentre >> movements affect the orbits of all the planets....as well as he interactions >> between them. > >Only to people who don't know how to perform such a calculation. This is just a >straightforward case of a self-consistent computation. There are only a few >dozen objects involved, which is no problem at all for modern computers and >software. > > My particle-simulation program can calculate space-charge > forces among hundreds to thousands of particles. These are > pair-wise E&M forces that are much more complicated than > gravity. The code specific to this is less than 800 lines of > C++. (There is also an approximation that can handle millions > of particles.) Well if you are so clever, you should have no difficulty in simulating Mercury's precession due to eight planets. >> What you cannot get into your head is the fact that the movements of the >> barycentre affect the orbits of all the planets. > >Well there's a major part of your confusion. Sensible models of the solar system >use barycentric coordinates, for the simple reason that they are inertial. >Sun-centered coordinates are not inertial and thus MUCH more complicated. > > >> The whole system is chaotic and could not possibly be >> calculated. > >Your claims are refuted by the models that are actually calculated. > > "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those > who are doing it." -- George Bernard Shaw > >And your utter IGNORANCE of what "chaotic" actually means completely destroys >your "argument". > >Stop basing your claims on your personal IGNORANCE and go LEARN something about >the subject! Your GUESSES are wrong. Stop preaching the gospel of the Einsteinian church. It is nonsense from start to finish. Time has nothing to do with the way light moves and nor has space itself. > >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 00:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f91f49f3-dbca-456b-a0c5-ea59d7f17677@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382388 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:03:14 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > 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. > > 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 Notice these so-called claims are based on the original Le Verrier's data. <shrug> > 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) Notice Paul has no fvcking clue but is guessing. <shrug> > 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"? There is no such thing as Newtonian predictions on Mercury's perihelion advance. It is all about computer simulations not incorporating any ring-world crap. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25b3e814-8099-479c-a2dd-aa3cfe95b984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382448 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:01:13 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:03:14 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > 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 > > Notice these so-called claims are based on the original Le Verrier's data. <shrug> Repeating a lie ad nauseam does not make it true, Koobee. Le Verrier cited data from the late 1600s through to 1850, but relied most heavily on transit data from 1753-1848. Clemence used a *greatly expanded* data set that included not just transit information, but high accuracy positional data up through 1937. The volume of data was such that Clemence needed to publish it in a 221 page volume. The motion of Mercury, 1765-l937 (U. S. Nautical almanac office. Astronomical papers prepared for the use of the American ephemeris and nautical almanac ... Vol. XI, pt. I) by Gerald M Clemence https://books.google.com/books?id=XC4ekgAACAAJ http://www.amazon.com/1765-l937-Nautical-Astronomical-prepared-ephemeris/dp/B0006AQGUM Present day interplanetary probes such as MESSENGER have enabled nearly continuous monitoring of Mercury's orbit over several years' periods with range residuals of less than six meters and Doppler residuals of better than 0.1 mm/sec http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5569 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2817 https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01382 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0484 http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00008
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fad37272-3994-4354-9718-5dd832ee3ddf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382495 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Notice these so-called claims are based on the original Le > > Verrier's data. <shrug> > > Repeating a lie ad nauseam does not make it true, Koobee. What lie? <shrug> > Le Verrier cited data from the late 1600s through to 1850, but relied > most heavily on transit data from 1753-1848. Still Le Verrier's data influence, no? Big fvcking deal! <shrug> > Clemence used a *greatly expanded* data set that included not just > transit information, but high accuracy positional data up through > 1937. The volume of data was such that Clemence needed to publish it > in a 221 page volume. This assumption is just wrong. Clemence merely went back and gave error bars to Le Verrier's work with poor justifications. Clemence offered nothing new to Mercury's perihelion advance. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 23:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29ee2195-392e-482d-9884-25cc686d6f07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382514 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:46:03 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, April 29, 2016, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Notice these so-called claims are based on the original Le > > > Verrier's data. <shrug> > > > > Repeating a lie ad nauseam does not make it true, Koobee. > > What lie? <shrug> > > > Le Verrier cited data from the late 1600s through to 1850, but relied > > most heavily on transit data from 1753-1848. > > Still Le Verrier's data influence, no? Big fvcking deal! <shrug> > > > Clemence used a *greatly expanded* data set that included not just > > transit information, but high accuracy positional data up through > > 1937. The volume of data was such that Clemence needed to publish it > > in a 221 page volume. > > This assumption is just wrong. Clemence merely went back and gave error bars > to Le Verrier's work with poor justifications. Clemence offered nothing new > to Mercury's perihelion advance. <shrug> Clemence made use of close to ***NINE*** additional decades of data, Koobee, as well as improved orbital elements for all of the planets. You are being unreasonably stubborn in the face of undeniable facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 02:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7faa6c71-f288-4922-ab4c-8c6dcb752015@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #382388 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 kwietnia 2016 14:03:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Only a complete moron can claim that the precession > is chaotic and unpredictable when it factually > is predicted to be exactly what is observed. > Praise Great Guru predicting it - 100 years after it was observed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 17:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2110741.mP0AhTPem1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #382353 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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%, […] Wrong. PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 02:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ng5clg$1m58$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382585 |
On 02/05/16 01:35, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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%, […] > > Wrong. He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) > > PointedEars >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng7pr5$1tpd$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #382593 |
On 5/1/2016 11:59 AM, HGW wrote: > On 02/05/16 01:35, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>> 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%, […] >> >> Wrong. > > He's always wrong...didn't you know? :) Your knee-jerk reactions only end up making you look more the idiot that you are. > >> >> PointedEars >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web