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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl6hul$iit$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387052 |
On 7/1/2016 2:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/29/16 6/29/16 - 8:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> This is a LINGUISTIC issue. When one says "the length of the rod", >>> nothing >>> but the rod is mentioned, and it inherently can only refer to the >>> intrinsic >>> length of the rod, which we now know must be measured in its rest >>> frame -- >>> that is the only type of length that can be attributed to the rod >>> itself. >> >> Since length itself is defined operationally (that is, by specifying some >> core requirements of the measurement procedure), perhaps you can explain >> what "length of the rod" means detached from the measurement procedure. > > A given rod inherently has a property we call "length". This is the way the > English language works, and is also the way the world we inhabit seems > to work. This is what I don't buy, and I think this is what Einstein's campaign was partly about. The same thing was once thought of the property of simultaneity -- that English seems to imply that there is some inherent property of two events that they are either simultaneous or they are not. Einstein put forward an operational definition of simultaneity, which everyone took to be sensible, and the OUTCOME of that operational definition was the discovery that there is no such thing as "inherent simultaneity". I believe the same thing was done for the property "length", where an operational meaning was established, and the OUTCOME of that is that -- regardless of recourse to "the way the English language works" -- nature doesn't seem to respect an "inherent length" property. And for very connected reasons! > > A given rod also has other intrinsic properties, such as material > composition > (the list of atoms that comprise the rod), temperature (a measure of those > atoms' vibrational motions within the rod), color (response to visible > light), > rest frame, etc. > > ALL of these intrinsic properties of the rod are aspects of the rod alone, > without reference to anything else. This includes "length of the rod". > > >> To me, to say when we refer to only the rod, then "length" now means >> something magically different, even though the definition is still >> operationally indistinguishable from any other circumstance, and THERE >> IS NO >> other definition of length than the operational one. > > There is nothing "magically different", it's just that the rod HAS a > length, > intrinsically, and to measure it one must use the rest frame of the rod > (because > using any other frame would involve something other than the rod, namely > the > frame used). Again, I will point out that length as an INTRINSIC property means nothing, when length is DEFINED by means of a measurement procedure. Simply stating that there is such an intrinsic property ANYWAY is pointlessly pounding on the wrong patch of ground. > > In your operational definition of length, you presumably include the > notion of > marking the endpoints simultaneously in some frame, using marks at rest > in the > frame, and then measuring the distance between the marks in the frame (not > necessarily simultaneously). The rest frame of the rod is unique in that > the > rod's ends themselves serve as such marks. This is PRECISELY the statement that Henry Wilson makes, that the rod DEFINES an absolute length and that any measurement that gets a different value than this number is a measurement done incorrectly. But keep in mind that that operational DEFINITION of length by how it is measured (precisely as you described above, by simultaneous marking of endpoints) cannot be wrong -- it is a DEFINITION of length. > The rest frame of the rod is > also > unique in that it is the only frame in which the frame-measured-distance > between > atoms in the rod are their usual values. "Usual" meaning rest-frame? LOL. In other words, the rest-frame values are unique in that they give the rest-frame values? True, but trite. > > >> The problem I have is when people make the statement that length may >> change >> with a change in reference frame, but "intrinsic length" does not change >> with a change in reference frame. > > You are using puns on "length" that confuse the issue (attributing such > usage to > others does not reduce the confusion inherent in such puns). It ought to be > clear that "the length of the rod measured in frame A" depends upon > which frame > "A" designates. > It also ought to be clear that "the intrinsic length of > the rod" > and "the length of the rod" do not mention "frame A" and thus cannot > depend on > which frame "A" designates. Or it should be clear that "intrinsic length of the rod" has as much physical content as "intrinsic simultaneity between two events", where in both cases you do not mention the frame nor the measurement procedure and thus magically and by omission incantation declare that the result is "intrinsic". > > Had you limited yourself to phrases such as those in the > previous paragraph, I would have no issue here. But using > standard English phrases and also ASSUMING that your > operational definition of "length" applies does not meet > the requirement of precision in thought and word -- most > of your readers will not share that meaning of "length" > (hence my pointing out that you use puns on that word). > > >> If you change reference frame from the rest frame, then by your own >> operational definition of "proper length" you are no longer measuring the >> proper length, and in fact the proper length is not measurable, >> because to >> measure the proper length you have to do it in the rest frame! > > My basic point is that one MUST be clear. Mentioning "length" in this > context, > without specifying the frame in which it is measured, is inherently > ambiguous. I agree! Which is why I think that "intrinsic length" where one does not mention the frame ON PURPOSE is in fact misleading. Because "length" is defined and ONLY MAKES SENSE by specification of the frame, in a nod to the operational definition. In much the same way that simultaneity MAKES NO SENSE without reference to the frame, and in fact "intrinsic simultaneity" has NO PHYSICAL CONTENT or semantically consistent connotation. > But in English, "the length of the rod" is not ambiguous, and refers to the > intrinsic property of the rod called "length". > > Bottom line: say "the length of the rod in frame A" when that is what > you mean. > Saying "the length of the rod" inherently refers to something else, and > only > results in confusion when you implicitly ASSUME some specific operational > definition of "length" not shared by your readers. > > Most people do not really subscribe to the operational definition > of "length" that you have in mind. When you mention "length", > people usually think of the inherent property of the rod, not an > operational definition. Which is a mistake they make in that reference, because there is no such thing as intrinsic length or intrinsic simultaneity. > > > Tom Roberts -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 06:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl6jk1$l8a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387057 |
On 02/07/16 05:57, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/1/2016 2:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Again, I will point out that length as an INTRINSIC property means > nothing, when length is DEFINED by means of a measurement procedure. > Simply stating that there is such an intrinsic property ANYWAY is > pointlessly pounding on the wrong patch of ground. > >> >> In your operational definition of length, you presumably include the >> notion of >> marking the endpoints simultaneously in some frame, using marks at rest >> in the >> frame, and then measuring the distance between the marks in the frame >> (not >> necessarily simultaneously). The rest frame of the rod is unique in that >> the >> rod's ends themselves serve as such marks. > > This is PRECISELY the statement that Henry Wilson makes, that the rod > DEFINES an absolute length and that any measurement that gets a > different value than this number is a measurement done incorrectly. But > keep in mind that that operational DEFINITION of length by how it is > measured (precisely as you described above, by simultaneous marking of > endpoints) cannot be wrong -- it is a DEFINITION of length. The way to measure a moving rod (L) is as follows: Set up a your own rod of known length Lo and place a clock at each end. Synch the clocks, (a simple process). Let the moving rod pass parallel to your clocks. Its speed is calculated by dividing Lo by the difference between time readings when ONE end of the moving rod passes your two clocks. Multiply that by the difference in times when the two ends of the moving rod pass ONE of your clocks. Although simple, that experiment has never been performed...and until it is, people like you and Tom will still keep on making fools of yourselves by trying to establish which version of pure bullshit is superior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl6lce$npq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387061 |
On 7/1/2016 3:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 02/07/16 05:57, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/1/2016 2:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> >> Again, I will point out that length as an INTRINSIC property means >> nothing, when length is DEFINED by means of a measurement procedure. >> Simply stating that there is such an intrinsic property ANYWAY is >> pointlessly pounding on the wrong patch of ground. >> >>> >>> In your operational definition of length, you presumably include the >>> notion of >>> marking the endpoints simultaneously in some frame, using marks at rest >>> in the >>> frame, and then measuring the distance between the marks in the frame >>> (not >>> necessarily simultaneously). The rest frame of the rod is unique in that >>> the >>> rod's ends themselves serve as such marks. >> >> This is PRECISELY the statement that Henry Wilson makes, that the rod >> DEFINES an absolute length and that any measurement that gets a >> different value than this number is a measurement done incorrectly. But >> keep in mind that that operational DEFINITION of length by how it is >> measured (precisely as you described above, by simultaneous marking of >> endpoints) cannot be wrong -- it is a DEFINITION of length. > > The way to measure a moving rod (L) is as follows: That, however, is not the operational definition of length. > > Set up a your own rod of known length Lo and place a clock at each end. > Synch the clocks, (a simple process). > Let the moving rod pass parallel to your clocks. > Its speed is calculated by dividing Lo by the difference between time > readings when ONE end of the moving rod passes your two clocks. Multiply > that by the difference in times when the two ends of the moving rod pass > ONE of your clocks. > > Although simple, that experiment has never been performed...and until it > is, people like you and Tom will still keep on making fools of > yourselves by trying to establish which version of pure bullshit is > superior. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5422bf8-f759-4229-be7d-5554345889c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387057 |
W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 21:57:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > events that they are either simultaneous or they are not. Einstein put > forward an operational definition of simultaneity, which everyone took > to be sensible, and the OUTCOME of that operational definition was the > discovery that there is no such thing as "inherent simultaneity". A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. According to Great Guru's operational definitions time is galilean (with the precision of an acceptable error) and simultaneity inherent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80f58767-34b4-493b-b8a2-373692f63365@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387150 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:56:47 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 21:57:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > events that they are either simultaneous or they are not. Einstein put > > forward an operational definition of simultaneity, which everyone took > > to be sensible, and the OUTCOME of that operational definition was the > > discovery that there is no such thing as "inherent simultaneity". > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > According to Great Guru's operational definitions > time is galilean (with the precision of an acceptable > error) and simultaneity inherent. No sir. Neither Einstein's nor modern physicists' operational definition of time is Galilean. It is ridiculous to maintain otherwise. Robert Winn is another poster here who maintains that as far as he is concerned Galilean time works just fine. But what is satisfactory and useful for his needs is irrelevant to what physicists and engineers need and use, and also irrelevant to the international standards that have been created to support them. So, to make this point for you to, what works for YOU doesn't matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 19:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlgps6$4jp$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387230 |
Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:80f58767-34b4-493b-b8a2-373692f63365@googlegroups.com... On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:56:47 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 21:57:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > events that they are either simultaneous or they are not. Einstein put > > forward an operational definition of simultaneity, which everyone took > > to be sensible, and the OUTCOME of that operational definition was the > > discovery that there is no such thing as "inherent simultaneity". > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > According to Great Guru's operational definitions > time is galilean (with the precision of an acceptable > error) and simultaneity inherent. |No sir. Neither Einstein's nor modern physicists' operational definition of time is Galilean. It is ridiculous to maintain otherwise. Your guru's definition is: time is what clocks indicate, sir. Clocks indicate t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error), sir. You can check it at GPS, sir. So, according to your guru's definition time is galilean, sir. Your moronic screams won't help it, and waving your arms won't help it too, sir. |international standards that have been created to support them Very unfortunately for your Shit, a bunch of idiots scrreaming "STANDARD!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard, sir. You can check at GPS - your "standard" was not accepted. Thus, your Shit has no real support. Too bad for it. So, to make this point for you to, what works for YOU and bunch of YOUR fellow idiots doesn't matter. Sir.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdba850b-2260-4745-8d7b-934814597ec7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387232 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:13:44 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:80f58767-34b4-493b-b8a2-373692f63365@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 12:56:47 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 lipca 2016 21:57:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > > events that they are either simultaneous or they are not. Einstein put > > > forward an operational definition of simultaneity, which everyone took > > > to be sensible, and the OUTCOME of that operational definition was the > > > discovery that there is no such thing as "inherent simultaneity". > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > According to Great Guru's operational definitions > > time is galilean (with the precision of an acceptable > > error) and simultaneity inherent. > > |No sir. Neither Einstein's nor modern physicists' operational definition of > time is Galilean. It is ridiculous to maintain otherwise. > > Your guru's definition is: time is what clocks indicate, sir. Clocks > indicate t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error), sir. You can > check it at GPS, sir. So, according to your guru's definition time is > galilean, sir. Your moronic screams won't help it, and waving your > arms won't help it too, sir. > > > |international standards that have been created to support them > > Very unfortunately for your Shit, a bunch of idiots scrreaming > "STANDARD!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard, > sir. You can check at GPS - your "standard" was not accepted. Thus, > your Shit has no real support. Too bad for it. > So, to make this point for you to, what works for YOU and bunch > of YOUR fellow idiots doesn't matter. Sir. It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. There is a definition of what a standard clock is, and that is what scientists and engineers have raised up and agreed to use. The fact that you point to a NONstandard clock on the GPS system, which has been DELIBERATELY and WITH GOOD REASON made a nonstandard clock, does not change this definition of a standard clock. The fact that you want to point to this NONstandard clock and want to believe that Einstein had this NONstandard clock in mind when he made that remark, is only a testament to stupidity and pig-headedness. If you're in this conversation to prove to everyone your stupidity and pig-headedness, then go ahead and talk about rusty clocks that lose time every day and how Einstein told you that time is what that clock says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlgvf9$aps$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387233 |
Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:fdba850b-2260-4745-8d7b-934814597ec7@googlegroups.com... |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty clock that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator what time is. Poor bunch of idiots:( |There is a definition of what a standard clock is, If I write a definition of a standard shark stating that a standard shark has 6 legs and a chitine armor - there will be a definition of a standard shark. Will you accept it? | and that is what scientists and engineers have raised up and agreed to use. It's sad to see you were able to brainwash most of us enough to agree to use it, but, as you can check at GPS, we are far, far, really far from being brainwashed enough to REALLY use it. Your idiocy won't pass. |The fact that you point to a NONstandard clock on the GPS system, which has been DELIBERATELY and WITH GOOD REASON made a nonstandard clock Samely, when you point a NONstandard shark, having no legs but fins - you won't prove anything. At least you agree there are good reasons to make clocks my way. And what are the reasons to make clocks your way? Your insane guru imagined they will be fine? And symmetrical? Really great reasons, but, as you can see at GPS, not great enough. Maybe our common sense is only a set of prejudices, but we will follow it anyway, instead following your guru. You can do nothing about it. And, when others get conscious, we will cut your grants, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ca2b097-d305-4165-8e4a-67a2e5c3d36a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387237 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:fdba850b-2260-4745-8d7b-934814597ec7@googlegroups.com... > > |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and > make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not anybody, is > going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to lose 15 minutes or so a > day is a good indicator of what time is. > > But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty clock > that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator what time > is. Poor bunch of idiots:( He said nothing of the kind. If you know this is the case, then you are lying. If you don't know this is the case, then you're an uneducated idiot. Your choice. > > > |There is a definition of what a standard clock is, > > If I write a definition of a standard shark stating that a standard shark > has 6 legs > and a chitine armor - there will be a definition of a standard shark. Will > you accept > it? If you choose not to accept the definition of a standard clock that scientists and engineers have produced and accept as a community, that is a personal choice on your part. This will simply separate yourself from the community of scientists and engineers, which anyone like you can freely do. The question is, who will care if you do that? If you take pride in separating yourself from scientists and engineers, then by all means be my guest. We'll have nothing further to discuss. > > | and that is what scientists and engineers have raised up and agreed to > use. > > It's sad to see you were able to brainwash most of us enough to agree to use > it, but, > as you can check at GPS, we are far, far, really far from being brainwashed > enough > to REALLY use it. I have no idea what you mean by "REALLY use it". If you think that the definition of a standard clock means that NONstandard clocks should be forbidden and that GPS should not be allowed to use a NONstandard clock, then you're an idiot. > Your idiocy won't pass. > > |The fact that you point to a NONstandard clock on the GPS system, which has > been DELIBERATELY and WITH GOOD REASON made a nonstandard clock > > Samely, when you point a NONstandard shark, having no legs but fins - you > won't > prove anything. > At least you agree there are good reasons to make clocks my way. I'm not sure I do agree the reasons are good, and they're certainly not compelling enough to change the standard. Just to try to make the point more clearly for you. It is NOT A PRIORITY that all standard clocks tick at the same rate and agree with each other. That is not the primary purpose of clocks, EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS. Your personal objectives for what clocks should do are not shared by the science and engineering community, period. I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with that. > And what > are the > reasons to make clocks your way? Your insane guru imagined they will be > fine? > And symmetrical? Really great reasons, but, as you can see at GPS, not great > enough. > Maybe our common sense is only a set of prejudices, but we will follow it > anyway, > instead following your guru. You can do nothing about it. And, when others > get > conscious, we will cut your grants, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 06:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh6i6$1kcr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387238 |
On 06/07/16 06:01, PD wrote: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and >> make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not >> anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to >> lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. >> >> But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty >> clock that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator >> what time is. Poor bunch of idiots:( > > He said nothing of the kind. If you know this is the case, then you > are lying. If you don't know this is the case, then you're an > uneducated idiot. Your choice. Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks lie just so his second postulate would appear correct....and a whole bunch of idiots fell for it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nlh8qv$1ni7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387239 |
On 7/5/2016 3:50 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 06:01, PD wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and >>> make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not >>> anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to >>> lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. >>> >>> But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty >>> clock that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator >>> what time is. Poor bunch of idiots:( >> >> He said nothing of the kind. If you know this is the case, then you >> are lying. If you don't know this is the case, then you're an >> uneducated idiot. Your choice. > > Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks > lie just so his second postulate would appear correct. Care to elaborate on that shameless tidbit of propaganda? > ....and a whole > bunch of idiots fell for it... > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 04:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljka9$11kp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387244 |
On 06/07/16 07:29, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 3:50 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 06/07/16 06:01, PD wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from >> Einstein and >>>> make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not >>>> anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to >>>> lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. >>>> >>>> But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty >>>> clock that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator >>>> what time is. Poor bunch of idiots:( >>> >>> He said nothing of the kind. If you know this is the case, then you >>> are lying. If you don't know this is the case, then you're an >>> uneducated idiot. Your choice. >> >> Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks >> lie just so his second postulate would appear correct. > > Care to elaborate on that shameless tidbit of propaganda? Bodkin, how can you have the audacity to post to real physicists on this NG when you obviously don't have the faintest understanding of SR basics? "Two clocks are only correctly synched ONLY IF THEY ARE ADJUSTED SO THEY WILL MEASURE OWLS TO BE c" ____Einstein's definition....!!!! >> ....and a whole >> bunch of idiots fell for it... What is more, that definition followed the Fitzgerald/Lorentz idea that rod lengths and clock rates contracted with absolute speed. That made measurement of that speed seemingly impossible and raised big question marks throughout the whole aetherist community as to the very meaning of the term 'clock synchronization'. Einstein was a clever opportunist who would never miss a chance to plagiarize to his advantage. He recognized the difference between OWLS and TWLS and so jumped in with the great idea that since light speed would always be measured as c according to LET's transforms, (and that meant OWLS as well as TWLS) the above definition was legitimate. Unfortunately for Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Bodkin, Roberts, Moron-y, Harnagel, Andersen and the rest of the relativist ratpack, the absolute aether that underlies Einstein's whole theory does not exist and nor do the infamous LTs that arose out of a completely wrong interpretation of the MMX result. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nljlqs$kda$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387308 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >Bodkin, how can you have the audacity to post to real physicists on this >NG when you obviously don't have the faintest understanding of SR basics? Real physicists on this NG? Who? Where? Certainly not you, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljn5p$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387308 |
On 7/6/2016 1:57 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 07:29, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/2016 3:50 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 06/07/16 06:01, PD wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>> >>> |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from >>> Einstein and >>>>> make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not >>>>> anybody, is going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to >>>>> lose 15 minutes or so a day is a good indicator of what time is. >>>>> >>>>> But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty >>>>> clock that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator >>>>> what time is. Poor bunch of idiots:( >>>> >>>> He said nothing of the kind. If you know this is the case, then you >>>> are lying. If you don't know this is the case, then you're an >>>> uneducated idiot. Your choice. >>> >>> Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks >>> lie just so his second postulate would appear correct. >> >> Care to elaborate on that shameless tidbit of propaganda? > > Bodkin, how can you have the audacity to post to real physicists on this > NG when you obviously don't have the faintest understanding of SR basics? > > "Two clocks are only correctly synched ONLY IF THEY ARE ADJUSTED SO THEY > WILL MEASURE OWLS TO BE c" ____Einstein's definition....!!!! You'll have to support that "quotation" with an explicit reference. I'm pretty sure Einstein never used the acronym OWLS and I don't think he even used the phrase "one-way light speed". > >>> ....and a whole >>> bunch of idiots fell for it... > > What is more, that definition followed the Fitzgerald/Lorentz idea that > rod lengths and clock rates contracted with absolute speed. That made > measurement of that speed seemingly impossible and raised big question > marks throughout the whole aetherist community as to the very meaning of > the term 'clock synchronization'. What questions would those be? All that it would be lost is the ability to sense absolute speed using synchronization, not the meaning of synchronization itself (which remains sturdy). > Einstein was a clever opportunist who would never miss a chance to > plagiarize to his advantage. He recognized the difference between OWLS > and TWLS and so jumped in with the great idea that since light speed > would always be measured as c according to LET's transforms, (and that > meant OWLS as well as TWLS) the above definition was legitimate. It's legitimate ANYWAY. What other proposal would you make? > > Unfortunately for Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Bodkin, Roberts, Moron-y, > Harnagel, Andersen and the rest of the relativist ratpack, the absolute > aether that underlies Einstein's whole theory does not exist and nor do > the infamous LTs that arose out of a completely wrong interpretation of > the MMX result. > >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 07:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljrtu$1ddr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387319 |
On 07/07/16 05:46, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/6/2016 1:57 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks >>>> lie just so his second postulate would appear correct. >>> >>> Care to elaborate on that shameless tidbit of propaganda? >> >> Bodkin, how can you have the audacity to post to real physicists on this >> NG when you obviously don't have the faintest understanding of SR basics? >> >> "Two clocks are only correctly synched ONLY IF THEY ARE ADJUSTED SO THEY >> WILL MEASURE OWLS TO BE c" ____Einstein's definition....!!!! > > You'll have to support that "quotation" with an explicit reference. I'm > pretty sure Einstein never used the acronym OWLS and I don't think he > even used the phrase "one-way light speed". I take that as admittance that you have never even read Einstein's 1905 paper. That being so, you are definitely not qualified to discuss this subject at all. >> >>>> ....and a whole >>>> bunch of idiots fell for it... >> >> What is more, that definition followed the Fitzgerald/Lorentz idea that >> rod lengths and clock rates contracted with absolute speed. That made >> measurement of that speed seemingly impossible and raised big question >> marks throughout the whole aetherist community as to the very meaning of >> the term 'clock synchronization'. > > What questions would those be? All that it would be lost is the ability > to sense absolute speed using synchronization, not the meaning of > synchronization itself (which remains sturdy). Bodkin, do I have to teach you history as well as physics? Eatherists generally believed that synchronization was absolute and didn't really see any problems until the MMX and the LTs appeared. That changed the whole picture, as any real physicist can easily imagine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nljt0i$1fcm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387337 |
On 7/6/2016 4:07 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 07/07/16 05:46, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/6/2016 1:57 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Einstein did worse than that. He deliberately advocated making clocks >>>>> lie just so his second postulate would appear correct. >>>> >>>> Care to elaborate on that shameless tidbit of propaganda? >>> >>> Bodkin, how can you have the audacity to post to real physicists on this >>> NG when you obviously don't have the faintest understanding of SR >>> basics? >>> >>> "Two clocks are only correctly synched ONLY IF THEY ARE ADJUSTED SO THEY >>> WILL MEASURE OWLS TO BE c" ____Einstein's definition....!!!! >> >> You'll have to support that "quotation" with an explicit reference. I'm >> pretty sure Einstein never used the acronym OWLS and I don't think he >> even used the phrase "one-way light speed". > > I take that as admittance that you have never even read Einstein's 1905 > paper. That being so, you are definitely not qualified to discuss this > subject at all. Oh, I've read it. You can find it right here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ I think you'll be hard pressed to show where that quote appears in the paper. > >>> >>>>> ....and a whole >>>>> bunch of idiots fell for it... >>> >>> What is more, that definition followed the Fitzgerald/Lorentz idea that >>> rod lengths and clock rates contracted with absolute speed. That made >>> measurement of that speed seemingly impossible and raised big question >>> marks throughout the whole aetherist community as to the very meaning of >>> the term 'clock synchronization'. >> >> What questions would those be? All that it would be lost is the ability >> to sense absolute speed using synchronization, not the meaning of >> synchronization itself (which remains sturdy). > > Bodkin, do I have to teach you history as well as physics? > Eatherists generally believed that synchronization was absolute and > didn't really see any problems until the MMX and the LTs appeared. That > changed the whole picture, as any real physicist can easily imagine. Didn't change the meaning of synchronization. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 23:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b3ec80e-2315-49fc-8a97-29b3c0e8a4f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387238 |
W dniu wtorek, 5 lipca 2016 22:01:12 UTC+2 użytkownik PD napisał: > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:fdba850b-2260-4745-8d7b-934814597ec7@googlegroups.com... > > > > |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and > > make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not anybody, is > > going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to lose 15 minutes or so a > > day is a good indicator of what time is. > > > > But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty clock > > that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator what time > > is. Poor bunch of idiots:( > > He said nothing of the kind. Yes, he did. > > > > > > |There is a definition of what a standard clock is, > > > > If I write a definition of a standard shark stating that a standard shark > > has 6 legs > > and a chitine armor - there will be a definition of a standard shark. Will > > you accept > > it? > > If you choose not to accept the definition of a standard clock that scientists and engineers have produced and accept as a community, that is a personal choice on your part. Yes, it is. So, will you accept the definition of a shark above or not? |If you think that the definition of a standard clock means that NONstandard |clocks should be forbidden and that GPS should not be allowed to use a |NONstandard clock, then you're an idiot. Well,the word "standard" usually means exactly that. Not always, but - the word "proper" leaves no doubt. "Proper" always means exactly that. You're simply too stupid to know, what the words you're playing with mean. As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > |The fact that you point to a NONstandard clock on the GPS system, which has > > been DELIBERATELY and WITH GOOD REASON made a nonstandard clock > > > > Samely, when you point a NONstandard shark, having no legs but fins - you > > won't > > prove anything. > > At least you agree there are good reasons to make clocks my way. > > I'm not sure I do agree the reasons are good Yes, you do, you can check it just some lines above. > Just to try to make the point more clearly for you. It is NOT A PRIORITY that all standard clocks tick at the same rate and agree with each other. That is not the primary purpose of clocks Wrong. It IS the PRIORITY and it IS the primary purpose of clocks. Even if you think it's not. You're simply incompetent when talking about priorities and purposes, it's my job, not yours. Personal objectives of your idiot guru for what clocks should do are not shared by engineering community - you can check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d736561-c736-4121-bd9e-95f662c1826c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387272 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:02:07 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 5 lipca 2016 22:01:12 UTC+2 użytkownik PD napisał: > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:fdba850b-2260-4745-8d7b-934814597ec7@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |It doesn't really matter if you take a sound-bite remark from Einstein and > > > make it to be more than what it is. Nobody, not Einstein, not anybody, is > > > going to insist that a rusty clock that is known to lose 15 minutes or so a > > > day is a good indicator of what time is. > > > > > > But Einstein, together with your bunch, insisted that a rusty clock > > > that is known to loose about 40us a day is a good indicator what time > > > is. Poor bunch of idiots:( > > > > He said nothing of the kind. > > Yes, he did. > > > > > > > > > > |There is a definition of what a standard clock is, > > > > > > If I write a definition of a standard shark stating that a standard shark > > > has 6 legs > > > and a chitine armor - there will be a definition of a standard shark. Will > > > you accept > > > it? > > > > If you choose not to accept the definition of a standard clock that scientists and engineers have produced and accept as a community, that is a personal choice on your part. > > Yes, it is. So, will you accept the definition of a shark > above or not? > > > |If you think that the definition of a standard clock means that NONstandard |clocks should be forbidden and that GPS should not be allowed to use a |NONstandard clock, then you're an idiot. > > Well,the word "standard" usually means exactly that. > Not always, but - the word "proper" leaves no doubt. > "Proper" always means exactly that. > You're simply too stupid to know, what the words > you're playing with mean. As expected from a > relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > |The fact that you point to a NONstandard clock on the GPS system, which has > > > been DELIBERATELY and WITH GOOD REASON made a nonstandard clock > > > > > > Samely, when you point a NONstandard shark, having no legs but fins - you > > > won't > > > prove anything. > > > At least you agree there are good reasons to make clocks my way. > > > > I'm not sure I do agree the reasons are good > > Yes, you do, you can check it just some lines > above. > > > > Just to try to make the point more clearly for you. It is NOT A PRIORITY that all standard clocks tick at the same rate and agree with each other. That is not the primary purpose of clocks > > Wrong. It IS the PRIORITY and it IS the primary > purpose of clocks. Even if you think it's not. > You're simply incompetent when talking about > priorities and purposes, it's my job, not yours. > > Personal objectives of your idiot guru for what > clocks should do are not shared by engineering > community - you can check it at GPS. Sorry, but I'm going to go with what scientists and engineers say about standard clocks and what makes them standard, not the opinion of a computer programmer with illusions of authority. You are free to disagree with me and with that community. And you will accomplish exactly nothing by doing so. Enjoy your windmill-tilting!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 23:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nljt56$l67$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #387328 |
Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:7d736561-c736-4121-bd9e-95f662c1826c@googlegroups.com... |Sorry, but I'm going to go with what scientists and engineers say about standard clocks Sorry, but persuading us we say these nonsenses is a very sorry lie. Of course, sorry lies are exactly what is expected from a fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <058e056a-b61b-43ec-8338-85c2dc68a9e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387345 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 4:28:08 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "PD" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:7d736561-c736-4121-bd9e-95f662c1826c@googlegroups.com... > > |Sorry, but I'm going to go with what scientists and engineers say about > standard clocks > > Sorry, but persuading us we say these nonsenses is a very sorry lie. > Of course, sorry lies are exactly what is expected from a fanatic > idiot. I wouldn't dream of trying to persuade you. As I told you earlier, you are completely FREE to be unpersuaded. No one is going to force you. No one will even try. But in the end, what will you have won by being unpersuaded? Intellectual freedom? I say, you should go long and deep and reject the lie that 2+3=5 and the lie that the clear noon sky is blue. Extend your intellectual freedom! Reject everything! Rely only on what your common sense assures you is true, and reject all else! Be brave in your convictions!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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