Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-04 09:32 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-12 04:45 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-04 09:32 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 19:09 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 04:01 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:33 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 19:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 05:29 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 07:13 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 08:37 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 09:09 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:17 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 06:41 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:09 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 21:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:41 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:28 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-09 08:15 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:57 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 12:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-09 21:36 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 12:56 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-09 23:30 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:50 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 07:02 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 18:42 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:20 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 20:28 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:41 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 21:08 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:15 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-06 11:42 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-06 23:11 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 17:08 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 10:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 20:03 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 21:37 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 14:58 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 23:35 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 03:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 04:12 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:03 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-07 18:40 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:19 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 05:31 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:02 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-07 06:07 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-07 10:09 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 19:05 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:11 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 17:10 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-08 01:48 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 20:00 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:19 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:33 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 18:46 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:50 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 18:58 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:33 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:55 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-12 11:17 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 19:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 20:44 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 05:23 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:46 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:16 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 19:30 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-12 03:08 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-12 20:49 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 03:06 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:20 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 02:09 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:48 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 07:17 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:00 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-21 09:18 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-20 16:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-06 22:16 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 23:35 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 03:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:07 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:30 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 20:05 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:20 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:58 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 12:32 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-12 16:15 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 07:59 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:07 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:21 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-29 00:36 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:04 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 23:40 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:27 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:36 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:46 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:44 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:52 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:54 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:20 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:56 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:49 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-02 10:19 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 06:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:30 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 08:48 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 11:02 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-29 14:35 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-01 14:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 14:57 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 06:25 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:55 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-03 22:56 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:54 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 19:13 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 20:49 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 13:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 06:50 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:29 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 04:57 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:46 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:07 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-05 23:02 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 13:19 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-06 23:28 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:39 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-06 23:57 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 07:40 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-07-05 21:44 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 06:04 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-10 09:03 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 07:13 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 11:52 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-08 19:01 +0200
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 20:55 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:51 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:51 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:21 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:44 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:46 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 07:09 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:01 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-09 07:17 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:21 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-11 08:48 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 05:03 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-08 19:56 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:18 -0500
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:45 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-05 19:26 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kkhrapko@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 09:57 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). kkhrapko@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 10:01 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 13:04 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-13 08:21 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:47 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-14 09:30 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Neil <Neil@inethub.org> - 2016-06-14 00:12 +0000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-15 05:32 +1000
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 12:58 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-08 12:25 -0700
Re: Simple, Fundamental Question (probably too hard for dingleberries). "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 04:45 +1000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 11:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4eqdnW5m0c5-1cXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #385360 |
On 6/8/16 6/8/16 - 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/2016 5:00 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not >> affected by acceleration. > > Oh, but they are. Actually the clocks THEMSELVES aren't. A "perfect clock" would increment its indicated time by 1 second for every second of elapsed proper time it experiences. This holds regardless of which inertial frame it is at rest in, regardless of where it is located in a gravitational field, and regardless of how it might be accelerated. To avoid confusion, I will use the more standard notion of "ideal clock" for this. An ideal clock behaves as I said above, which is just like a real clock except with zero drift, zero measurement error, and perfect resolution. That is, we idealize away ERRORS but not behavior. Note that real clocks have been shown to not be significantly affected by an extremely large acceleration: Bailey et al measured the decay of muons stored in a storage ring in which the proper acceleration of the muons is ~ 10^18 g. Their decay rate was the same within measurement resolution as when they travel at the same speed in a straight line (i.e. with zero acceleration). And, of course, the atomic clocks in GPS satellites are not affected by their motion or altitude (or acceleration): The Cs oscillator in a GPS satellite definitively defines "1 second" in the satellite. The fact that unmodified GPS satellite clocks would not remain in sync with ground clocks does NOT show that the clocks accumulate time at different rates -- BY DEFINITION they do not (the Cs oscillator DEFINES what "1 second" means). In GR this is modeled as curvature of spacetime, in excellent agreement with measurements. > If what you mean by "perfect clocks" is "clocks that can be imagined to not be > constrained by the laws of physics", then there is no point talking about such > things. Yes, of course. Wilson fantasizes that once synchronized, his "perfect clocks" would remain synchronized no matter how they might be moved or accelerated. Real clocks do NOT behave that way. Nor do ideal clocks. Note that a pair of ideal clocks remaining synchronized after acceleration is VERY DIFFERENT from each clock not being affected by that acceleration. For instance, if one has two spatially separated ideal clocks at rest in and synchronized in inertial frame A, and one then accelerates them identically along the line between them and brings them to rest in inertial frame B, they will NOT be synchronized in frame B. Of course each ideal clock accurately accumulates the proper time along its trajectory. Or more simply: if one has two spatially separated ideal clocks at rest in and synchronized in inertial frame A, and one then moves one of them to the location of the other, they will NOT be in sync. Of course each ideal clock accurately accumulates the proper time along its trajectory. And also: if one has two co-located and synchronized ideal clocks at rest in inertial frame A, and one then takes one of them on a journey away from the other and then comes back to it, they will NOT be synchronized. Of course each ideal clock accurately accumulates the proper time along its trajectory. This last has been explicitly demonstrated using modern atomic clocks and an automobile at highway speeds. It has also been demonstrated using atomic clocks flown in airplanes. (In predicting results there is a correction for the motion of each clock relative to the ECI, and also for altitude variations.) Bottom line: synchronization of clock PAIRS is a lot more subtle than the operation of an individual clock, be it ideal or real. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj9i6e$gre$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385378 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:4eqdnW5m0c5-1cXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... On 6/8/16 6/8/16 - 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/2016 5:00 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not >> affected by acceleration. > > Oh, but they are. |Actually the clocks THEMSELVES aren't. A "perfect clock" would increment its Your "perfect" clock doesn't work, poor idiot. It often happens to theoretical perfection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50f4842a-b495-47a6-b103-e896d0b79381@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385381 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:47:12 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4eqdnW5m0c5-1cXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 6/8/16 6/8/16 - 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 6/8/2016 5:00 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not > >> affected by acceleration. > > > > Oh, but they are. > > |Actually the clocks THEMSELVES aren't. A "perfect clock" would increment > its > > Your "perfect" clock doesn't work, poor idiot. > It often happens to theoretical perfection. Such as your length contradiction, moron troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 18:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj9isk$hn7$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385384 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:50f4842a-b495-47a6-b103-e896d0b79381@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:47:12 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4eqdnW5m0c5-1cXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 6/8/16 6/8/16 - 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 6/8/2016 5:00 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not > >> affected by acceleration. > > > > Oh, but they are. > > |Actually the clocks THEMSELVES aren't. A "perfect clock" would increment > its > > Your "perfect" clock doesn't work, poor idiot. > It often happens to theoretical perfection. |Such as your length contradiction, moron troll. Hey, paparios! Great! after 2 years of farting, shitting and screaming you've got my first mistake. Use it well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0d601e6-c032-47c7-86e7-4e4a4cdf4756@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385335 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00:18 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not > affected by acceleration. But their relationship with the observer is affected by position & speed. Since the position & speed change, their relationship change. In different terms, the relationship with the observer (RO) is, say, F( x(t), v(t) ). But since v(t) = dx(t)/dt then RO = F( x(t), dx(t)/dt). The second derivative does not appear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-11 08:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njfgh9$1i6l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385489 |
On 09/06/16 22:33, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00:18 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Perfect clocks...the types used in thought experiments ....are not >> affected by acceleration. > > But their relationship with the observer is affected by position & speed. Since the position & speed change, their relationship change. Only in your voodoo aether physics > In different terms, the relationship with the observer (RO) is, say, > F( x(t), v(t) ). But since v(t) = dx(t)/dt then RO = F( x(t), dx(t)/dt). The second derivative does not appear. Moving clocks appear to change by the doppler term. They don't actually change at all and nor does their synch relationship.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-11 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95ee528d-e233-4679-8ca1-c0e15701c1b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385630 |
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:55:41 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >A change of speed affects the relationship between observer & > >observed. Some properties may remain the same (often called > > "proper") and some will not. No answer? Stumped again? > > I , and a rock in hand have our associated coordinate system. > >The rock is at x=0 in my frame and the rock is at at x=0 and > > the rock is at x'=0 in its frame. I throw the rock away. It > > is now at x = 4 meters in my frame and is at x'=0 in its > > frame. The rock hasn't changed but its position in my frame has; No answer? Stumped? You dont agree with that? >>>It wouldn't matter how the rod or clocks are set in motion >>> or what was the history beforehand, they end up just the >>> same as they were. >> >> No,they dont end up just as the same; one is gone "over there". >> The object in itself (its proper quantities) have not changed. >> ... >> Moreover, clocks are devices that "have memory", they "keep the >> history", they keep logging and adding their "ticks" together. >> So your claim of "wouldn't matter...what was the history" is >> just plain wrong. No answer? Stumped again? > Moving clocks appear to change by the doppler term. They don't actually > change at all and nor does their synch relationship. Again, some things change, and some dont. The result obtained by the measurement procedure of "rate of moving clocks" has changed, not "the rate of the clock". Do you realize that "rate of a moving clock" is a relationship between observer & observed; "rate of a moving clock" is NOT something intrinsic (proper) to the clock. Its proper length, its proper mas... are proper quantities. Its position, its speed, its "rate" are not proper quantities. You might want them to be, but they are not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 11:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njid6t$1ntd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385693 |
On 12/06/16 07:46, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:55:41 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>> A change of speed affects the relationship between observer & >>> observed. Some properties may remain the same (often called >>> "proper") and some will not. > > No answer? Stumped again? Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >>> I , and a rock in hand have our associated coordinate system. The >>> rock is at x=0 in my frame and the rock is at at x=0 and the >>> rock is at x'=0 in its frame. I throw the rock away. It is now at >>> x = 4 meters in my frame and is at x'=0 in its frame. The rock >>> hasn't changed but its position in my frame has; > > No answer? Stumped? You dont agree with that? Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >>>> It wouldn't matter how the rod or clocks are set in motion or >>>> what was the history beforehand, they end up just the same as >>>> they were. >>> >>> No,they dont end up just as the same; one is gone "over there". >>> The object in itself (its proper quantities) have not changed. >>> ... Moreover, clocks are devices that "have memory", they "keep >>> the history", they keep logging and adding their "ticks" >>> together. So your claim of "wouldn't matter...what was the >>> history" is just plain wrong. > > No answer? Stumped again? Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. > >> Moving clocks appear to change by the doppler term. They don't >> actually change at all and nor does their synch relationship. > > Again, some things change, and some dont. The result obtained by the > measurement procedure of "rate of moving clocks" has changed, not > "the rate of the clock". Do you realize that "rate of a moving clock" > is a relationship between observer & observed; "rate of a moving > clock" is NOT something intrinsic (proper) to the clock. A clock is a counter of oscillator cycles. Each such cycle defines and absolute interval of time...identical in all frames. A moving observer will see an oscillator run fast or slow according to the linear Doppler equation. The gamma term of Lorentz is proper bullshit like everything his followers present here. Its proper > length, its proper mas... are proper quantities. Its position, its > speed, its "rate" are not proper quantities. You might want them to > be, but they are not. Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-11 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13323297-5819-46f6-8d61-45559c8130db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385702 |
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:17:22 PM UTC-4, HGW wrote: > Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate system; "distances are proper quantities". You are even dumber than idiot ken now...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 20:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njjeet$u51$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385705 |
On 12/06/16 12:17, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:17:22 PM UTC-4, HGW wrote: > >> Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. > > So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your > hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate > system; "distances are proper quantities". What a strange thing to say! A distance is defined by two points...and a rod can be placed between them. That rod is the same no matter how many differently moving observers look at it. You are even dumber than > idiot ken now... Ken is a lot more intelligent than you will ever be. He's just a bit confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe0f53b9-50ee-4428-a17b-684d1154055b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385721 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 12/06/16 12:17, rotchm wrote: > > > > So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your > > hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate > > system; "distances are proper quantities". > > What a strange thing to say! > A distance is defined by two points...and a rod can be placed between them. > That rod is the same no matter how many differently moving observers > look at it. Of course a rod is not affected by anyone looking at it! But that doesn't mean that everyone will measure it that way. One who has a measuring tape positioned along the rod sees its length as 1 meter, but one who's view is not perpendicular to that length will measure it as shorter because his measuring tape is placed at an angle. Didn't you ever take geometry?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 07:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njkl6p$nv3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385729 |
On 12/06/16 22:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> On 12/06/16 12:17, rotchm wrote: >>> >>> So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your >>> hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate >>> system; "distances are proper quantities". >> >> What a strange thing to say! >> A distance is defined by two points...and a rod can be placed between them. >> That rod is the same no matter how many differently moving observers >> look at it. > > Of course a rod is not affected by anyone looking at it! But that doesn't > mean that everyone will measure it that way. One who has a measuring tape > positioned along the rod sees its length as 1 meter, but one who's view > is not perpendicular to that length will measure it as shorter because his > measuring tape is placed at an angle. Didn't you ever take geometry? You have agreed that the technique he used was flawed. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb2fa6be-751f-47be-911f-a8a36a50dfa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385754 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 3:46:05 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 12/06/16 22:23, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 4:44:48 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > On 12/06/16 12:17, rotchm wrote: > > > > > > > > So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your > > > > hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate > > > > system; "distances are proper quantities". > > > > > > What a strange thing to say! > > > A distance is defined by two points...and a rod can be placed between > > > them. That rod is the same no matter how many differently moving > > > observers look at it. > > > > Of course a rod is not affected by anyone looking at it! But that doesn't > > mean that everyone will measure it that way. One who has a measuring tape > > positioned along the rod sees its length as 1 meter, but one who's view > > is not perpendicular to that length will measure it as shorter because his > > measuring tape is placed at an angle. Didn't you ever take geometry? > > You have agreed that the technique he used was flawed. Sure, the only proper measurement technique is to be stationary wrt the rod. It's not really about lengths, it's about time. https://www.amazon.com/Its-About-Time-David-Mermin-ebook/dp/B007AIXGF6?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 09:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njnesr$tj4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385764 |
On 13/06/16 08:44, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 3:46:05 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> So you now claim that a rock you throw over there is still in your >>>>> hands because distances does not depend on the observers coordinate >>>>> system; "distances are proper quantities". >>>> >>>> What a strange thing to say! >>>> A distance is defined by two points...and a rod can be placed between >>>> them. That rod is the same no matter how many differently moving >>>> observers look at it. >>> >>> Of course a rod is not affected by anyone looking at it! But that doesn't >>> mean that everyone will measure it that way. One who has a measuring tape >>> positioned along the rod sees its length as 1 meter, but one who's view >>> is not perpendicular to that length will measure it as shorter because his >>> measuring tape is placed at an angle. Didn't you ever take geometry? >> >> You have agreed that the technique he used was flawed. > > Sure, the only proper measurement technique is to be stationary wrt the rod. > It's not really about lengths, it's about time. ....only in your fairytale physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa1ddc14-2bcf-47e4-b040-40bdafd95916@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385824 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:16:47 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 13/06/16 08:44, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > Ralphie-boy wrote: > > > > > > You have agreed that the technique he used was flawed. > > > > Sure, the only proper measurement technique is to be stationary wrt the rod. > > It's not really about lengths, it's about time. > > ....only in your fairytale physics Only in your demented brain, horse dropping. > > > Orbiting stars provide us with ideal moving light sources that are > > > far enough away to be investigated. Simulations of variable star > > > light curves now show conclusively that their light moves at c+v > > > towards Earth for a substantial part of its journey. > > > Simulations that deny reality, of course and thus are pure baloney. > > that attitude sums up your ignorance and stupidity Nope, it sums up your ignorance, stupidity and mental decay. > > Henry has NEVER explained why interference should exist in > > incoherent light. > > dont change the subject. I didn't, mental midget. YOU are the idiot that brought up your abysmally stupid variable star baloney, demented one. > it wont help you It already has. No one believes your really stupid crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 03:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njijo5$7gl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #385702 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >On 12/06/16 07:46, rotchm wrote: >> No answer? Stumped again? >Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >> No answer? Stumped? You dont agree with that? >Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >> No answer? Stumped again? >Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. But the questions apparently all stumped you, Ralph. Does that mean that you aren't an "anybody"? Are you an artificial intelligence program? I really mean an artificial stupidity program, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 20:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njjeoc$ukn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385706 |
On 12/06/16 13:08, Michael Moron-y wrote: > HGW <hw@...> writes: > >> Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. > >>> No answer? Stumped again? > >> Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. > > But the questions apparently all stumped you, Henry. Does that mean that > you aren't an "anybody"? Are you an artificial intelligence program? I > really mean an artificial stupidity program, of course. One doesn't need artificial intelligence to know that Einstein's whole theory is bullshit from start to finish and that those who still conspire to maintain his name as the symbol of human genius are insipid wimps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 03:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njl7vo$np1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #385722 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/06/16 13:08, Michael Moron-y wrote: >> HGW <hw@...> writes: >> >>> Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >> >>>> No answer? Stumped again? >> >>> Proper bullshit would not stump anybody. >> >> But the questions apparently all stumped you, Henry. Does that mean that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! You are just too stoopid to learn, aren't you, Ralph! Mr. Rabbidge, how many times do I keep having to tell you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not to mess with my quotes, Ralph? >> you aren't an "anybody"? Are you an artificial intelligence program? I >> really mean an artificial stupidity program, of course. >One doesn't need artificial intelligence to know that Einstein's whole >theory is bullshit from start to finish and that those who still >conspire to maintain his name as the symbol of human genius are insipid >wimps. But, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, so far nobody here has *ever* disproven any part of Einstein's relativity, Ralph, no matter how many nutcases (such as one Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) whine about it here. As far as myself, I don't care about Einstein as a person. And of course, neither do the laws of physics, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, if Einstein never existed, the laws of relativity would still have been there, Ralph, waiting until someone (or likely, multiple someones) came along and discovered them, some years or perhaps decades, after Einstein actually did. Where would we be today, Ralph? By now, we'd have the equivalent of SR and GR, but perhaps technology dependent on it would be delayed, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, perhaps now you'd be sitting there flaming about Mr. Smith's SR and Mr. Jones' GR while flailing away on a computer we'd consider to have 1980's technology or something, as the semiconductor people try to understand the effects of that new science, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that's what I think we'd be seeing in a world which never had an Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 09:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <njnf2s$u1a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385769 |
On 13/06/16 13:06, Michael Moron-y wrote: ...a lot of incomprehensible garbage that would qualify him for immediate entry to a mental institution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njnp1j$lj8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #385825 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 13/06/16 13:06, Michael Moron-y wrote: >...a lot of incomprehensible garbage that would qualify him for >immediate entry to a mental institution. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, is your name, "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge", really considered "incomprehensible garbage" these days? And what is this about mental institutions, Ralph? Do they have an alert out for one "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" who is on the loose and considered a menace to society, Ralph? Or just a menace to kangaroos, Ralph? But the real question, Ralph, is whether you'll ever be smart enough to learn not to alter my quotes, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web