Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386788 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-28 20:21 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-02 05:53 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 376 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-28 20:21 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 22:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 11:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 21:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-30 22:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 14:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 14:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 17:13 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 00:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-01 18:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 02:54 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 05:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 06:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-02 12:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 06:41 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 15:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 20:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 18:12 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 14:39 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 23:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 17:17 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 01:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 19:54 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:20 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 21:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-05 10:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:15 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-06 11:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-07 11:06 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 05:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 19:34 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 20:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:22 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:20 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 15:09 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:28 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 07:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 08:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 17:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 08:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:32 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:47 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 16:43 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:28 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 14:56 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-07-05 21:59 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:18 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 22:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 16:31 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:46 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-06 16:00 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:30 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:48 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 18:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:59 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 05:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 23:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 18:43 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 19:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:24 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 21:32 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 13:15 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 08:54 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-05 09:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-05 02:34 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-05 18:55 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:34 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 05:46 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 08:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 06:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 09:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:03 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:49 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 17:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 05:25 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:13 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:05 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:23 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:41 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:54 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-06 17:40 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 06:57 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:10 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-07 11:19 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-08 12:49 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-04 16:21 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 15:11 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-03 22:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 07:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 07:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 06:44 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-29 23:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 08:09 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 17:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:45 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:17 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 13:59 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 06:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 09:16 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 14:33 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 17:31 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 09:28 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 13:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 14:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-03 05:01 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 10:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:03 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 13:30 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:35 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-05 06:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-05 11:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 13:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 06:03 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 08:43 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 08:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 15:33 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 06:04 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 17:54 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 04:30 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 14:24 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 15:08 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-09 03:11 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 05:28 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 07:36 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 03:53 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-10 05:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:24 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:56 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:42 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 13:04 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:38 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-08 06:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 08:59 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 15:24 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 14:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:22 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 13:01 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:29 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-12 15:19 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:15 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 07:43 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:14 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:35 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 07:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 09:19 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-17 02:48 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 05:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:45 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 05:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:36 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 19:59 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 06:02 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 08:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 09:02 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 11:15 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 17:23 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:34 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 10:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:44 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 11:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-19 07:16 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:50 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:00 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 11:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 08:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-20 14:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-21 04:21 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:20 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:37 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 15:33 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 10:31 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 08:34 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 18:04 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 08:39 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:27 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:48 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:30 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 11:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-18 08:42 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-18 03:29 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-19 08:43 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 08:25 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 18:03 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-20 12:51 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-20 18:54 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-21 08:29 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 14:59 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:26 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 13:30 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 08:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-15 16:17 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 14:53 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 16:35 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:07 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:43 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:53 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-06 13:53 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:07 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-06 22:25 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 17:41 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-07 02:52 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 05:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 09:20 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:09 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:28 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 11:05 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-07 09:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-08 05:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:46 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 11:05 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 10:40 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:02 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 13:23 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:33 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:52 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 06:00 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:21 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 07:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:26 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 04:16 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-06-30 20:52 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:19 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-01 14:02 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 20:14 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 09:27 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 02:58 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 17:00 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:18 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:43 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:00 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:50 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:58 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@...> - 2016-07-02 10:41 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:52 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 07:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 05:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-06 13:07 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 05:24 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-07 14:54 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-10 10:03 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-10 14:47 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-12 05:06 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-11 23:01 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-13 08:19 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-13 21:05 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 00:05 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 12:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:52 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-07 07:12 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 15:35 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-10 10:08 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-10 13:22 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:27 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-07-13 08:23 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-13 16:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-12 23:55 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 06:50 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-13 07:17 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 23:30 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 06:24 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-14 04:22 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:25 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-15 13:39 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-16 08:38 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:18 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:47 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-16 11:46 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:39 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 05:51 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 07:06 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-17 16:11 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 07:44 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 09:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-17 12:45 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-17 18:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-18 04:47 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:54 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:34 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 15:02 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-03 11:42 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 06:10 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 09:23 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 19:12 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:37 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:26 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 04:38 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:05 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 04:41 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-06 20:07 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 05:07 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 02:46 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:51 +0000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-04 21:36 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 04:49 -0700
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-05 09:01 +1000
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:40 -0500
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-01 08:41 +0200
Re: How Stupid Can a Dingleberry Get? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-02 05:53 +1000
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40d369e1-d597-448e-b919-9e8a5cdbed0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386918 |
El miércoles, 29 de junio de 2016, 16:00:06 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 30/06/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 16:44:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >>>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > >>>> > >>>> C1_________L__________C2 > >>>> > >>> What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are considering the rod > >>> and the clocks at the absolute 1686 Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the > >>> corresponding absolute time? > >>> > >>> Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean absolutely nothing. > >> > >> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated aetherist. There > >> can be no other explanation as to why anyone would believe the signals > >> should take different times to transit the rod. > >> > > No, I am not an aetherist, but a follower of 1905 Einstein, precisely the one > > who declared superfluous the "luminiferous ether"; he also defines the time of > > a *stationary system* of coordinates (related with bodies) in which Newtonian > > equations hold good, being it possible to synchronize two clocks in more than > > one such a system. > > Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. He stole the > idea from Poincare, who had already formulated the theory that Einstein > became famous for. In reality, it is NOT superfluous in either theory > because it alone provides the mechanism for the source independence > condition of Einstein's second postulate. Without the 'superfluous > aether', Einstein's second postulate has no validity. > You are distorting completely the historical facts. The following are literal 1905 Einstein's words (almost at the end of the Introduction of his June 30 first Relativity paper) [ ]: [ The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity- vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ] As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous the ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor Lorentz has something similar previous to him, they never rejected the ether; I challenge you to refer any historical paper contradicting what I am saying). He also defines the *time* relative to a stationary system (of Cartesian coordinates with Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good. At the end of Section 4 of the same paper he introduces a physical example of stationary system, the 1686 Newtonian center of mass system corresponding to all interacting Earth's parts, today denoted GPS ECI. YOU are the one saying now that the aether is NOT superfluous, thinking erroneously that it is necessary to explain the source independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. The 1905R first postulate (PoR) is the following (explicitly stated in the Introduction) [ ]: [ The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. ]] And the detailed second one is the following (almost at the beginning of Section 2) [ ]: [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time interval , where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Section 1 ] BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very successful GPS operation since already almost four decades. With Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are resolving every instant the following Newtonian system of equations: (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception instant t of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at least 4 ones) with position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i. The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally independent on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI stationary system. The light velocity c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good in the same frame of reference where the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate 1), being also independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding good both 1905R Postulates. The objective (experimental) existence of the relative space and time defined by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a direct and extraordinary huge support, without the need to assume the existence of any ether (as you erroneously think). All this has NOTHING to do with today SR. > > As you are the one starting this thread, you MUST specify from the beginning > > the context you are assuming to talk about space and time. Perhaps you are > > considering the rod and the clocks at rest in some 1905 Einstein's stationary > > system? Are the clocks synchronized in that system or in another one? > > In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. There is > relative movement only. > SR is nothing but LET in disguise....and there is no absolute aether. > The "true relativity" that you are talking about has NOTHING to do with Einstein's 1905R, but you have all the right to believe in the theory that you want (or develop a new one). BTW, see how 1905R second postulate refers only to a stationary system, unique type of entity where 1905 Einstein defines a relative space and time to it. > TIME is in no way related to movement. How could it be when speed has > dimensions L/T? Do you really believe that the statement T = fn(L/T) is > mathematically acceptable. > I recommend you to study in all detail the 1905 Einstein relative space and time definition (Section 1). Do not confuse them more with the later developed today SR concepts. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)...totally brainwashed... Let us see who is the one totally brainwashed. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 05:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl6hhs$hvf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386988 |
On 01/07/16 04:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El miércoles, 29 de junio de 2016, 16:00:06 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. > escribió: >> On 30/06/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 16:44:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. >>> escribió: >>>> On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>>>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, >>>>> DSc. escribió: >>>>>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. >>>>>> >>>>>> C1_________L__________C2 >>>>>> >>>>> What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are >>>>> considering the rod and the clocks at the absolute 1686 >>>>> Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the corresponding absolute >>>>> time? >>>>> >>>>> Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean >>>>> absolutely nothing. >>>> >>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated >>>> aetherist. There can be no other explanation as to why anyone >>>> would believe the signals should take different times to >>>> transit the rod. >>>> >>> No, I am not an aetherist, but a follower of 1905 Einstein, >>> precisely the one who declared superfluous the "luminiferous >>> ether"; he also defines the time of a *stationary system* of >>> coordinates (related with bodies) in which Newtonian equations >>> hold good, being it possible to synchronize two clocks in more >>> than one such a system. >> >> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. He stole >> the idea from Poincare, who had already formulated the theory that >> Einstein became famous for. In reality, it is NOT superfluous in >> either theory because it alone provides the mechanism for the >> source independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. >> Without the 'superfluous aether', Einstein's second postulate has >> no validity. >> > You are distorting completely the historical facts. The following are > literal 1905 Einstein's words (almost at the end of the Introduction > of his June 30 first Relativity paper) [ ]: > > [ The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not > require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special > properties, nor assign a velocity- vector to a point of the empty > space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ] > > As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous the > ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor Lorentz has > something similar previous to him, they never rejected the ether; Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' in your quote? He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify all light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely assumed its existence by including source independence as part of his postulate. I challenge you to refer any > historical paper contradicting what I am saying). He also defines the > *time* relative to a stationary system (of Cartesian coordinates with > Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good. At the > end of Section 4 of the same paper he introduces a physical example > of stationary system, the 1686 Newtonian center of mass system > corresponding to all interacting Earth's parts, today denoted GPS > ECI. > > YOU are the one saying now that the aether is NOT superfluous, > thinking erroneously that it is necessary to explain the source > independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. How else can there be source independence? Do you have enough intelligence to understand what it implies? It means that light pulses emitted in the same direction by differently moving sources maintain the same spatial relationship for their whole lifetimes.... How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, in which case light has no reference other than its own source. Which signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two speeds? can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? > The 1905R first postulate (PoR) is the following (explicitly stated > in the Introduction) [ ]: > > [ The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. > ]] > > And the detailed second one is the following (almost at the beginning > of Section 2) [ ]: > > [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates > with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a > stationary or by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time > interval , where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the > definition in Section 1 ] > > BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very > successful GPS operation since already almost four decades. With > Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are > resolving every instant the following Newtonian system of equations: GPS system does not rely on Einstein's GR in any way. > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception > instant t of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at > least 4 ones) with position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i. > > The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally > independent on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI > stationary system. The light velocity c is derived from 1864 > Maxwell's equations holding good in the same frame of reference where > the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate 1), being also > independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding good > both 1905R Postulates. The objective (experimental) existence of the > relative space and time defined by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a > direct and extraordinary huge support, without the need to assume the > existence of any ether (as you erroneously think). All this has > NOTHING to do with today SR. GPS doesn't use any aspect of Einstein's theory. >>> As you are the one starting this thread, you MUST specify from >>> the beginning the context you are assuming to talk about space >>> and time. Perhaps you are considering the rod and the clocks at >>> rest in some 1905 Einstein's stationary system? Are the clocks >>> synchronized in that system or in another one? >> >> In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. >> There is relative movement only. SR is nothing but LET in >> disguise....and there is no absolute aether. >> > The "true relativity" that you are talking about has NOTHING to do > with Einstein's 1905R, I should hope not... > but you have all the right to believe in the > theory that you want (or develop a new one). BTW, see how 1905R > second postulate refers only to a stationary system, unique type of > entity where 1905 Einstein defines a relative space and time to it. There is nothing unusual are clever about defining a particular frame as being 'stationary'. It is the same as specifying a particular frame to be used as a velocity reference. Galileo did that. >> TIME is in no way related to movement. How could it be when speed >> has dimensions L/T? Do you really believe that the statement T = >> fn(L/T) is mathematically acceptable. >> > I recommend you to study in all detail the 1905 Einstein relative > space and time definition (Section 1). Do not confuse them more with > the later developed today SR concepts. I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. > >>> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)...totally brainwashed...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec3943af-71ae-40b1-9a8e-a618a2bc31ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387054 |
El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 15:50:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 01/07/16 04:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El miércoles, 29 de junio de 2016, 16:00:06 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. > > escribió: > >> On 30/06/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 16:44:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. > >>> escribió: > >>>> On 29/06/16 02:17, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>>>> El martes, 28 de junio de 2016, 6:21:37 (UTC-4), HGWilson, > >>>>> DSc. escribió: > >>>>>> A rod has a light source and a clock at each end. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C1_________L__________C2 > >>>>>> > >>>>> What time and space are you talking about? Perhaps you are > >>>>> considering the rod and the clocks at the absolute 1686 > >>>>> Newtonian rest, showing the clocks the corresponding absolute > >>>>> time? > >>>>> > >>>>> Without specifying an initial context, all what you say mean > >>>>> absolutely nothing. > >>>> > >>>> I gather from your inane rant that you are a dedicated > >>>> aetherist. There can be no other explanation as to why anyone > >>>> would believe the signals should take different times to > >>>> transit the rod. > >>>> > >>> No, I am not an aetherist, but a follower of 1905 Einstein, > >>> precisely the one who declared superfluous the "luminiferous > >>> ether"; he also defines the time of a *stationary system* of > >>> coordinates (related with bodies) in which Newtonian equations > >>> hold good, being it possible to synchronize two clocks in more > >>> than one such a system. > >> > >> Einstein did not 'declare' the aether to be superfluous. He stole > >> the idea from Poincare, who had already formulated the theory that > >> Einstein became famous for. In reality, it is NOT superfluous in > >> either theory because it alone provides the mechanism for the > >> source independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. > >> Without the 'superfluous aether', Einstein's second postulate has > >> no validity. > >> > > You are distorting completely the historical facts. The following are > > literal 1905 Einstein's words (almost at the end of the Introduction > > of his June 30 first Relativity paper) [ ]: > > > > [ The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not > > require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special > > properties, nor assign a velocity- vector to a point of the empty > > space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ] > > > > As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous the > > ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor Lorentz has > > something similar previous to him, they never rejected the ether; > > Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' in > your quote? > My native language is Spanish, not English. Using an on line Oxford dictionary, "inasmuch as" means in Spanish *ya que*, *puesto que*, *dado que* or * en la medida que*. No one of them implies that 1905 Einstein is accepting the existence of the "luminiferous ether". > He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify all > light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely assumed > its existence by including source independence as part of his postulate. > 1905 Einstein does NOT assume at all the "luminiferous ether" existence; that its existence implies the source independence part of the 1905R second postulate is only YOUR erroneous deduction, in total contradiction with the experimental facts very well established by the GPS operation already mentioned. > > I challenge you to refer any > > historical paper contradicting what I am saying). He also defines the > > *time* relative to a stationary system (of Cartesian coordinates with > > Euclidean geometry) in which Newtonian equations hold good. At the > > end of Section 4 of the same paper he introduces a physical example > > of stationary system, the 1686 Newtonian center of mass system > > corresponding to all interacting Earth's parts, today denoted GPS > > ECI. > > > > YOU are the one saying now that the aether is NOT superfluous, > > thinking erroneously that it is necessary to explain the source > > independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. > > How else can there be source independence? > Do you have enough intelligence to understand what it implies? It means > that light pulses emitted in the same direction by differently moving > sources maintain the same spatial relationship for their whole lifetimes.... Yes, this is exactly what occurs to all the GPS satellite emissions all the time since already almost four decades. BTW, the lifetimes are pretty short, ending at the reception instant with a straight line trajectory at the same uniform velocity c in the ECI stationary space. > How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, in > which case light has no reference other than its own source. Which > signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two speeds? In the GPS case, the medium is the air with its corresponding uniform velocity (close to the vacuum light one). If you study the 1905 Einstein time definition carefully, you will find that the moving agent uniform velocity can has any possible value from cero to infinite. > can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? > To be compared with 1905 Einstein is for me an undeserved (but appreciated) privilege. > > The 1905R first postulate (PoR) is the following (explicitly stated > > in the Introduction) [ ]: > > > > [ The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all > > frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. > > ]] > > > > And the detailed second one is the following (almost at the beginning > > of Section 2) [ ]: > > > > [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates > > with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a > > stationary or by a moving body. Hence velocity=light path/time > > interval , where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the > > definition in Section 1 ] > > > > BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the very > > successful GPS operation since already almost four decades. With > > Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry, all GPS receptors are > > resolving every instant the following Newtonian system of equations: > > GPS system does not rely on Einstein's GR in any way. > Who is mentioning here GR? Not me at least. I am only talking about 1905 Einstein, about 10 years before the GR development. > > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > > > where (x, y, z) is the position of the receptor at the same reception > > instant t of signals transmitted from i different satellites (at > > least 4 ones) with position (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i. > > > > The signals have then always the same uniform velocity c, totally > > independent on the satellite (or receptor) velocities in the GPS ECI > > stationary system. The light velocity c is derived from 1864 > > Maxwell's equations holding good in the same frame of reference where > > the equations of mechanics do the same (Postulate 1), being also > > independent on the source velocity (Postulate 2), i.e. holding good > > both 1905R Postulates. The objective (experimental) existence of the > > relative space and time defined by 1905R, finds then with the GPS a > > direct and extraordinary huge support, without the need to assume the > > existence of any ether (as you erroneously think). All this has > > NOTHING to do with today SR. > > GPS doesn't use any aspect of Einstein's theory. > In the operative GPS ALL atomic clocks are synchronized according to the 1905 Einstein *time* definition with a very high accuracy. Do not see you that EVERY transmitted signal from a satellite to a receptor fulfill the requirement of the moving agent in the 1905 Einstein's *time* definition? > >>> As you are the one starting this thread, you MUST specify from > >>> the beginning the context you are assuming to talk about space > >>> and time. Perhaps you are considering the rod and the clocks at > >>> rest in some 1905 Einstein's stationary system? Are the clocks > >>> synchronized in that system or in another one? > >> > >> In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. > >> There is relative movement only. SR is nothing but LET in > >> disguise....and there is no absolute aether. > >> > > The "true relativity" that you are talking about has NOTHING to do > > with Einstein's 1905R, > > I should hope not... > In the GPS it is used a SINGLE 1905R stationary system (the ECI), corresponding to a SINGLE Earth's center of mass at relative rest, with an also SINGLE 1905R time that ALL synchronized atomic clocks shows always simultaneously. In the GPS ECI at any instant, any entity has a SINGLE velocity relative to the system, and the relative velocity between any two entities IS NOT USED AT ALL IN ANY PLACE. You have a TOTALLY DISTORTED view about what 1905R is. > > but you have all the right to believe in the > > theory that you want (or develop a new one). BTW, see how 1905R > > second postulate refers only to a stationary system, unique type of > > entity where 1905 Einstein defines a relative space and time to it. > > There is nothing unusual are clever about defining a particular frame as > being 'stationary'. It is the same as specifying a particular frame to > be used as a velocity reference. Galileo did that. > The holding good of Newtonian equations (with Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry) is a definition requirement of what 1905 Einstein denotes as *stationary system*. I remember you that the 1686 Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) Corollary V is the Galileo's Principle of Relativity, generalized from acceleration zero (any uniform velocity) to any variable acceleration with the Corollary VI. > >> TIME is in no way related to movement. How could it be when speed > >> has dimensions L/T? Do you really believe that the statement T = > >> fn(L/T) is mathematically acceptable. > >> > > I recommend you to study in all detail the 1905 Einstein relative > > space and time definition (Section 1). Do not confuse them more with > > the later developed today SR concepts. > > I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. > Let us see. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 10:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl72je$19fb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387069 |
On 02/07/16 09:58, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 15:50:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. > escribió: >>> As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous >>> the ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor >>> Lorentz has something similar previous to him, they never >>> rejected the ether; >> >> Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' >> in your quote? >> He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify >> all light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely >> assumed its existence by including source independence as part of >> his postulate. >> > 1905 Einstein does NOT assume at all the "luminiferous ether" > existence; that its existence implies the source independence part > of the 1905R second postulate is only YOUR erroneous deduction, in > total contradiction with the experimental facts very well established > by the GPS operation already mentioned. there are NO experimental facts that support any of Einstein's theory >>> YOU are the one saying now that the aether is NOT superfluous, >>> thinking erroneously that it is necessary to explain the source >>> independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. >> >> How else can there be source independence? Do you have enough >> intelligence to understand what it implies? It means that light >> pulses emitted in the same direction by differently moving sources >> maintain the same spatial relationship for their whole >> lifetimes.... > > Yes, this is exactly what occurs to all the GPS satellite emissions > all the time since already almost four decades. BTW, the lifetimes > are pretty short, ending at the reception instant with a straight > line trajectory at the same uniform velocity c in the ECI stationary > space. When a signal is sent from a GPS satellite, it doesn't know if its source is moving in a circle or a straight line. >> How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, >> in which case light has no reference other than its own source. >> Which signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two >> speeds? > > In the GPS case, the medium is the air with its corresponding > uniform velocity (close to the vacuum light one). You are obviously not qualified to discuss the GPS at all if you think its signals travel through air for most of their journey. Come back when you have learnt some facts. If you study the 1905 > Einstein time definition carefully, you will find that the moving > agent uniform velocity can has any possible value from cero to > infinite. I have no idea of what you are talking about. >> can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? >> > To be compared with 1905 Einstein is for me an undeserved (but > appreciated) privilege. You must consider yourself to be completely dumb then. But you don't appear to be dishonest like he was. >>> BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the >>> very successful GPS operation since already almost four decades. >>> With Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry, all GPS >>> receptors are resolving every instant the following Newtonian >>> system of equations: >> >> GPS system does not rely on Einstein's GR in any way. >> > Who is mentioning here GR? Not me at least. I am only talking about > 1905 Einstein, about 10 years before the GR development. > >>> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 That equation merely says that the length of a vector in space can be expressed in terms of light speed. It is wrong in assuming that the speed is c in all frames and not c+v. >> >> GPS doesn't use any aspect of Einstein's theory. >> > In the operative GPS ALL atomic clocks are synchronized according to > the 1905 Einstein *time* definition with a very high accuracy. Do > not see you that EVERY transmitted signal from a satellite to a > receptor fulfill the requirement of the moving agent in the 1905 > Einstein's *time* definition? no. The signals take an average of about 90 milliseconds to travel from satellite to receiver. The fractional acceleration just happens to be exactly the same figure of 5.13e-10 m/s2 as the infamous GR correction. A number of other corrections are made to that travel time and the orbit ephemeres are calculated after all such data is interpreted. In the long run, the GPS system relies almost entirely on empirical measurements and adjustments. >>>> In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. >>>> There is relative movement only. SR is nothing but LET in >>>> disguise....and there is no absolute aether. >>>> >>> The "true relativity" that you are talking about has NOTHING to >>> do with Einstein's 1905R, >> >> I should hope not... >> > In the GPS it is used a SINGLE 1905R stationary system (the ECI), > corresponding to a SINGLE Earth's center of mass at relative rest, > with an also SINGLE 1905R time that ALL synchronized atomic clocks > shows always simultaneously. The only criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synchronization with each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba9cd483-8b3d-442a-b7ca-ac7a3b1ac046@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387072 |
El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 20:41:23 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > On 02/07/16 09:58, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 15:50:24 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. > > escribió: > > > >>> As you can see, 1905 Einstein is the FIRST deriving superfluous > >>> the ether from his new 1905R theory (neither Poincare nor > >>> Lorentz has something similar previous to him, they never > >>> rejected the ether; > >> > >> Nor did Einstein!!!! can you see the words 'in as much as......' > >> in your quote? > > >> He did not need to mention it because its role was solely to unify > >> all light speeds from differently moving sources. Einstein merely > >> assumed its existence by including source independence as part of > >> his postulate. > >> > > 1905 Einstein does NOT assume at all the "luminiferous ether" > > existence; that its existence implies the source independence part > > of the 1905R second postulate is only YOUR erroneous deduction, in > > total contradiction with the experimental facts very well established > > by the GPS operation already mentioned. > > there are NO experimental facts that support any of Einstein's theory > I explained to you already in detail (including the literal 1905R text of its two postulates) how the GPS successful operation (since almost four decades) is a DIRECT experimental fact giving a HUGE support to 1905R two postulates. > > >>> YOU are the one saying now that the aether is NOT superfluous, > >>> thinking erroneously that it is necessary to explain the source > >>> independence condition of Einstein's second postulate. > >> > >> How else can there be source independence? Do you have enough > >> intelligence to understand what it implies? It means that light > >> pulses emitted in the same direction by differently moving sources > >> maintain the same spatial relationship for their whole > >> lifetimes.... > > > > Yes, this is exactly what occurs to all the GPS satellite emissions > > all the time since already almost four decades. BTW, the lifetimes > > are pretty short, ending at the reception instant with a straight > > line trajectory at the same uniform velocity c in the ECI stationary > > space. > > When a signal is sent from a GPS satellite, it doesn't know if its > source is moving in a circle or a straight line. > Exactly, no matter how the satellite is moving in the ECI 1905R stationary space, the signal moves in straight line with a uniform velocity c, in total agreement with postulates 1 and 2. > > >> How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, > >> in which case light has no reference other than its own source. > >> Which signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two > >> speeds? > > > > In the GPS case, the medium is the air with its corresponding > > uniform velocity (close to the vacuum light one). > > You are obviously not qualified to discuss the GPS at all if you think > its signals travel through air for most of their journey. > Come back when you have learnt some facts. > I mentioned already that the air and vacuum velocities are close. For very great accuracy, in the GPS some minor adjustment are done in the ionosphere (and also in the troposphere) to fit the same uniform velocity c for the signals transmitted that is used in the equations. See how the important point here (for the physical realization of the GPS) is the uniform character of the signal velocity, not at all its specific constant value. No problem at all in the GPS if instead of all air or all vacuum we have any other medium. Of course, having on different parts of the signal trajectory significant different velocities, it would be a fact to take into account. > If you study the 1905 > > Einstein time definition carefully, you will find that the moving > > agent uniform velocity can has any possible value from cero to > > infinite. > > I have no idea of what you are talking about. > Only because you seem having not yet study the 1905 text in detail. In Section 1 where he defines *time* relative to a stationary system he writes [ ] (the emphasis in *by definition* is Einstein’s one) : [ We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish BY DEFINITION that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. ] A and B are any two points of the stationary space where 1905 Einstein put a clock at rest in each one at a constant distance. If you follow the *time* definition in all detail, you will find that the essential point here is the IDEAL uniform velocity character of something that moves (what I denote as *moving agent*), not being important at all the specific constant value of it. Verify by yourself that using ANY value for the moving agent uniform speed, the same *time* stays defined. If you have yet any doubt about the ideal character of 1905 Einstein's time definition, read him almost at the end of Section 1 [ ]: [ Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or "synchronous", and of "time".” The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ] > >> can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? > >> > > To be compared with 1905 Einstein is for me an undeserved (but > > appreciated) privilege. > > You must consider yourself to be completely dumb then. But you don't > appear to be dishonest like he was. > Let us see. > > > >>> BOTH postulates find today a HUGE experimental support with the > >>> very successful GPS operation since already almost four decades. > >>> With Cartesian coordinates and Euclidean geometry, all GPS > >>> receptors are resolving every instant the following Newtonian > >>> system of equations: > >> > >> GPS system does not rely on Einstein's GR in any way. > >> > > Who is mentioning here GR? Not me at least. I am only talking about > > 1905 Einstein, about 10 years before the GR development. > > > >>> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > That equation merely says that the length of a vector in space can be > expressed in terms of light speed. It is wrong in assuming that the > speed is c in all frames and not c+v. > In the GPS ECI we have a SINGLE 1905R stationary system, where ALL the signals transmitted by the moving satellites have the same uniform speed c in that stationary system, confirming 1905R Postulate 1, because the c is derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations holding good jointly with 1686 Newton's ones; and confirming also Postulate 2, because c is independent on satellite velocities (the source of the transmitted signals with uniform speed c). We are talking about EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, being supported by four decades of very successful and continuous GPS operation. What is proved experimentally wrong is YOUR assumption of c+v speed for the signal velocities. > > >> > >> GPS doesn't use any aspect of Einstein's theory. > >> > > In the operative GPS ALL atomic clocks are synchronized according to > > the 1905 Einstein *time* definition with a very high accuracy. Do > > not see you that EVERY transmitted signal from a satellite to a > > receptor fulfill the requirement of the moving agent in the 1905 > > Einstein's *time* definition? > > no. The signals take an average of about 90 milliseconds to travel from > satellite to receiver. The fractional acceleration just happens to be > exactly the same figure of 5.13e-10 m/s2 as the infamous GR correction. What "fractional acceleration" are you talking about? In the equations that all GPS receptors are continuously resolving, the trajectory of all signals are always a straight line segment described by the more common and simple of Newtonian equations, with path length equal to the product of uniform speed and time interval, as in the 1905R Postulate 2. In the GPS receptors, the equations are resolved taking for granted the synchronization of all operative atomic clocks. Remember that by definition, in any 1905R stationary system (as the GPS ECI), the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. If you want to identify the GPS ECI time with the Newtonian absolute one, I have no objection at all (if you use it only to internal events, of course). > A number of other corrections are made to that travel time and the orbit > ephemeres are calculated after all such data is interpreted. In the > long run, the GPS system relies almost entirely on empirical > measurements and adjustments. > Have you some objection to the very successful use of Newtonian equations in the GPS ECI? Maybe you do not trust on the scientific method to evaluate theories? Or perhaps you reject the scientific method only when the experimental evidence is contrary to what you think (as in the 1905R case)? Newtonian equations are used all the time determining orbit ephemerides in the GPS. > > >>>> In true relativity, there are no moving or stationary systems. > >>>> There is relative movement only. SR is nothing but LET in > >>>> disguise....and there is no absolute aether. > >>>> > >>> The "true relativity" that you are talking about has NOTHING to > >>> do with Einstein's 1905R, > >> > >> I should hope not... > >> > > In the GPS it is used a SINGLE 1905R stationary system (the ECI), > > corresponding to a SINGLE Earth's center of mass at relative rest, > > with an also SINGLE 1905R time that ALL synchronized atomic clocks > > shows always simultaneously. > > The only criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute > synchronization with each other. Not only the orbiting clocks, ALL ones are synchronized in GPS following 1905R. Remember that 1905R finds an extraordinary support (including its two postulates) with the huge experimental evidence that the GPS very successful operation offers. Are you able to explain what means for you "absolute synchronization" compared with the 1905R relative one? Do you think that the GPS ECI relative time can be used to describe the Sun's trajectory (or any other external to ECI body)? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 07:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlh7ig$1lqb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387229 |
On 06/07/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 20:41:23 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: >> On 02/07/16 09:58, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >> >> there are NO experimental facts that support any of Einstein's theory >> > I explained to you already in detail (including the literal 1905R text of its > two postulates) how the GPS successful operation (since almost four decades) is > a DIRECT experimental fact giving a HUGE support to 1905R two postulates. Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. >> When a signal is sent from a GPS satellite, it doesn't know if its >> source is moving in a circle or a straight line. >> > Exactly, no matter how the satellite is moving in the ECI 1905R stationary > space, the signal moves in straight line with a uniform velocity c, in total > agreement with postulates 1 and 2. It moves at c relative to its source. What other reference does it have for speed? >>>> How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, >>>> in which case light has no reference other than its own source. >>>> Which signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two >>>> speeds? >>> >>> In the GPS case, the medium is the air with its corresponding >>> uniform velocity (close to the vacuum light one). >> >> You are obviously not qualified to discuss the GPS at all if you think >> its signals travel through air for most of their journey. >> Come back when you have learnt some facts. >> > I mentioned already that the air and vacuum velocities are close. For very > great accuracy, in the GPS some minor adjustment are done in the ionosphere > (and also in the troposphere) to fit the same uniform velocity c for the > signals transmitted that is used in the equations. Only a small proportion of signal travel is in air. > See how the important point here (for the physical realization of the GPS) is > the uniform character of the signal velocity, not at all its specific constant > value. No problem at all in the GPS if instead of all air or all vacuum we have > any other medium. Of course, having on different parts of the signal trajectory > significant different velocities, it would be a fact to take into account. > >> If you study the 1905 >>> Einstein time definition carefully, you will find that the moving >>> agent uniform velocity can has any possible value from cero to >>> infinite. >> >> I have no idea of what you are talking about. >> > Only because you seem having not yet study the 1905 text in detail. In Section > 1 where he defines *time* relative to a stationary system he writes [ ] (the > emphasis in *by definition* is Einstein’s one) : > > [ We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be > defined at all unless we establish BY DEFINITION that the "time" required by > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to > A. ] Time has nothing whatsoever to do with the finite speed of any known form of communication. > > If you have yet any doubt about the ideal character of 1905 Einstein's time > definition, read him almost at the end of Section 1 [ ]: > > [ Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled > what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different > places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or > "synchronous", and of "time".” The "time" of an event is that which is given > simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the > event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time > determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ] Your knowledge is sadly lacking. Clocks are only human devices that measure time with better accuracy than our biological sensors. Clocks do not define time any more than a steel tape defines what space is. However, the period of an oscillator does define a specific interval of time and a steel tape does define a specific interval of space. >>>> can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? >>>> >>> To be compared with 1905 Einstein is for me an undeserved (but >>> appreciated) privilege. >> >> You must consider yourself to be completely dumb then. But you don't >> appear to be dishonest like he was. >> > Have you some objection to the very successful use of Newtonian equations in > the GPS ECI? Maybe you do not trust on the scientific method to evaluate > theories? Or perhaps you reject the scientific method only when the > experimental evidence is contrary to what you think (as in the 1905R case)? > > Newtonian equations are used all the time determining orbit ephemerides in the > GPS. Nothing but Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9aef585e-ad08-4898-8820-c7a5f86301af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387240 |
El martes, 5 de julio de 2016, 17:07:33 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 06/07/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 20:41:23 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > >> On 02/07/16 09:58, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > >> > >> there are NO experimental facts that support any of Einstein's theory > >> > > I explained to you already in detail (including the literal 1905R text of its > > two postulates) how the GPS successful operation (since almost four decades) is > > a DIRECT experimental fact giving a HUGE support to 1905R two postulates. > > Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was > merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. > What I repeat to you already more than one time (and in all detail), is that the successful GPS operation represents a HUGE experimental support for 1905R, including its two postulates. Even accepting that 1905R is not used in the development of GPS, the mentioned support continue existing, converting your assertion "there are NO experimental facts that support any of Einstein's theory" in a total falsehood. > >> When a signal is sent from a GPS satellite, it doesn't know if its > >> source is moving in a circle or a straight line. > >> > > Exactly, no matter how the satellite is moving in the ECI 1905R stationary > > space, the signal moves in straight line with a uniform velocity c, in total > > agreement with postulates 1 and 2. > > It moves at c relative to its source. What other reference does it have > for speed? > No, it moves at c relative to any 1905R stationary system (like the ECI one), according to Postulates 1 and 2 that find HUGE experimental support with the successful GPS function. You can show your ignorance about how the 1905R postulates determine c, but what you cannot do is to reject the huge experimental evidence supporting it. > >>>> How could that possibly happen without the existence of a medium, > >>>> in which case light has no reference other than its own source. > >>>> Which signal would accelerate or slow down to unify the two > >>>> speeds? > >>> > >>> In the GPS case, the medium is the air with its corresponding > >>> uniform velocity (close to the vacuum light one). > >> > >> You are obviously not qualified to discuss the GPS at all if you think > >> its signals travel through air for most of their journey. > >> Come back when you have learnt some facts. > >> > > I mentioned already that the air and vacuum velocities are close. For very > > great accuracy, in the GPS some minor adjustment are done in the ionosphere > > (and also in the troposphere) to fit the same uniform velocity c for the > > signals transmitted that is used in the equations. > > Only a small proportion of signal travel is in air. > That is only another reason for the transmitted signals velocity to be pretty close to the vacuum light speed c derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations, valid in the 1686 Newtonian center of mass ECI system according to Postulate 1 (PoR). > > See how the important point here (for the physical realization of the GPS) is > > the uniform character of the signal velocity, not at all its specific constant > > value. No problem at all in the GPS if instead of all air or all vacuum we have > > any other medium. Of course, having on different parts of the signal trajectory > > significant different velocities, it would be a fact to take into account. > > > >> If you study the 1905 > >>> Einstein time definition carefully, you will find that the moving > >>> agent uniform velocity can has any possible value from cero to > >>> infinite. > >> > >> I have no idea of what you are talking about. > >> > > Only because you seem having not yet study the 1905 text in detail. In Section > > 1 where he defines *time* relative to a stationary system he writes [ ] (the > > emphasis in *by definition* is Einstein’s one) : > > > > [ We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be > > defined at all unless we establish BY DEFINITION that the "time" required by > > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to > > A. ] > > Time has nothing whatsoever to do with the finite speed of any known > form of communication. > 1905 Einstein is the first defining time in such a way, using that definition in his Postulate 2. You have all the right to continue thinking that time is whatever you want, but at the cost to be no more a scientist due to your continue rejection of very well established experimental facts. > > > > > If you have yet any doubt about the ideal character of 1905 Einstein's time > > definition, read him almost at the end of Section 1 [ ]: > > > > [ Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled > > what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different > > places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or > > "synchronous", and of "time".” The "time" of an event is that which is given > > simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the > > event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time > > determinations, with a specified stationary clock. ] > > Your knowledge is sadly lacking. > Clocks are only human devices that measure time with better accuracy > than our biological sensors. Clocks do not define time any more than a > steel tape defines what space is. > However, the period of an oscillator does define a specific interval of > time and a steel tape does define a specific interval of space. > Do not forget that 1905 Einstein defines time when having already a stationary space determined by a set of interacting bodies following 1686NM laws, conceiving an IDEAL moving agent in it with a mathematical uniform velocity. Our biological sensors play no role at all here. > >>>> can't you see how stupid you and Einstein are? > >>>> > >>> To be compared with 1905 Einstein is for me an undeserved (but > >>> appreciated) privilege. > >> > >> You must consider yourself to be completely dumb then. But you don't > >> appear to be dishonest like he was. > > >> > > Have you some objection to the very successful use of Newtonian equations in > > the GPS ECI? Maybe you do not trust on the scientific method to evaluate > > theories? Or perhaps you reject the scientific method only when the > > experimental evidence is contrary to what you think (as in the 1905R case)? > > > > Newtonian equations are used all the time determining orbit ephemerides in the > > GPS. > > Nothing but Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system. > Do not forget that the holding good of Newtonian equations is a definition requirement of what 1905 Einstein denotes *stationary system”, unique type of entity where he defines a relative time to it. Your assertion about that only Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system is a flagrant falsehood. You are ignoring totally that ALL GPS receptors are resolving in every ECI instant (since already four decades) system of equations developed using both 1905R postulates. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljksj$12g1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387262 |
On 06/07/16 09:39, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 5 de julio de 2016, 17:07:33 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> On 06/07/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>>> >>> I mentioned already that the air and vacuum velocities are close. For very >>> great accuracy, in the GPS some minor adjustment are done in the ionosphere >>> (and also in the troposphere) to fit the same uniform velocity c for the >>> signals transmitted that is used in the equations. >> >> Only a small proportion of signal travel is in air. >> > That is only another reason for the transmitted signals velocity to be pretty > close to the vacuum light speed c derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations, valid > in the 1686 Newtonian center of mass ECI system according to Postulate 1 (PoR). Maxwell's equations said nothing about any ECI system. The apply only to a dielectric medium that acts as a speed reference. Empty space has no such medium. >> >> Time has nothing whatsoever to do with the finite speed of any known >> form of communication. >> > 1905 Einstein is the first defining time in such a way, using that definition > in his Postulate 2. You have all the right to continue thinking that time is > whatever you want, but at the cost to be no more a scientist due to your > continue rejection of very well established experimental facts. No such facts exist outside the minds of diehard Einstein worshippers. >>> >>> Newtonian equations are used all the time determining orbit ephemerides in the >>> GPS. >> >> Nothing but Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system. >> > Do not forget that the holding good of Newtonian equations is a definition > requirement of what 1905 Einstein denotes *stationary system”, unique type of > entity where he defines a relative time to it. > > Your assertion about that only Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system is > a flagrant falsehood. You are ignoring totally that ALL GPS receptors are > resolving in every ECI instant (since already four decades) system of equations > developed using both 1905R postulates. The GPS system works because all the orbiting clock readings are software corrected to be in absolute synch and the orbit ephemerides are empirically adjusted and known with great precision. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd01b3c1-cc87-4556-b8d9-4a9ab33961d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387310 |
El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2016, 15:07:03 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 06/07/16 09:39, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El martes, 5 de julio de 2016, 17:07:33 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> On 06/07/16 01:52, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > > >>>> > >>> I mentioned already that the air and vacuum velocities are close. For very > >>> great accuracy, in the GPS some minor adjustment are done in the ionosphere > >>> (and also in the troposphere) to fit the same uniform velocity c for the > >>> signals transmitted that is used in the equations. > >> > >> Only a small proportion of signal travel is in air. > >> > > That is only another reason for the transmitted signals velocity to be pretty > > close to the vacuum light speed c derived from 1864 Maxwell's equations, valid > > in the 1686 Newtonian center of mass ECI system according to Postulate 1 (PoR). > > Maxwell's equations said nothing about any ECI system. The apply only to > a dielectric medium that acts as a speed reference. Empty space has no > such medium. > Yes, as you says, the original 1864 Maxwell's equations applies only to a dielectric medium that acts as a speed reference, the "luminiferous ether" at absolute rest that 1905 Einstein put out (proving it superfluous) with his new 1905R theory where its Postulate 1 (PoR) says [ ]: [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ] The new what 1905R proposes is precisely that 1864 Maxwell's equations apply in ANY 1905R stationary system of coordinates in which the equations of mechanics hold good, including the vacuum without any ether present. An instance of such a system is the 1686 Newtonian center of mass one corresponding to the body set of all interacting Earth's parts, introduced by 1905 Einstein at the end of Section 4 of his June 30 paper, the same today denoted GPS ECI. > > >> > >> Time has nothing whatsoever to do with the finite speed of any known > >> form of communication. > >> > > 1905 Einstein is the first defining time in such a way, using that definition > > in his Postulate 2. You have all the right to continue thinking that time is > > whatever you want, but at the cost to be no more a scientist due to your > > continue rejection of very well established experimental facts. > > No such facts exist outside the minds of diehard Einstein worshippers. > Such facts exist, since already four decades of very successful GPS operation, with all its receptors resolving in a continuous way system of Newtonian equations developed with the use of the two 1905R postulates, where all signals transmitted from the moving satellites have the same uniform velocity c (see the equations) , not depending on the source satellite velocity (by Postulate 2); and with a straight line trajectory in the ECI stationary system that is NOT the ether absolute one (by Postulate 1). > > >>> > >>> Newtonian equations are used all the time determining orbit ephemerides in the > >>> GPS. > >> > >> Nothing but Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system. > >> > > Do not forget that the holding good of Newtonian equations is a definition > > requirement of what 1905 Einstein denotes *stationary system”, unique type of > > entity where he defines a relative time to it. > > > > Your assertion about that only Newtonian mechanics is used in the GPS system is > > a flagrant falsehood. You are ignoring totally that ALL GPS receptors are > > resolving in every ECI instant (since already four decades) system of equations > > developed using both 1905R postulates. > > The GPS system works because all the orbiting clock readings are > software corrected to be in absolute synch and the orbit ephemerides are > empirically adjusted and known with great precision. > Yes, all GPS atomic clocks are synchronized with the same GPS ECI time following the 1905R time definition. BTW, you do not answer my question about if that ECI time can be used to describe the Sun's trajectory in the ECI (my intention is to convince you that the ECI time does NOT have the absolute character that you think, being valid ONLY in the ECI). Since 1686NM Corollary IV, a center of mass system (as the GPS ECI is) can be used only to describe the trajectories of the bodies taking into account when determining its center. The Sun (or any other body external to the ECI, including the Moon) cannot has a trajectory in it (a violation of 1686NM laws is involved). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nliopu$plk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #387240 |
On 05.07.2016 23:07, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was > merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to maintain The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! You know, very close to all scientists accept GR as a valid, thoroughly tested and never falsified theory. There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like Ralph Malcom Rabbidge who have realized that all the experiments ever done are faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. Well done Ralph! Some of the faked experiments: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Impressive how many experiments have been faked to maintain the conspiracy, isn't it? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nljlsj$1404$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387281 |
On 06/07/16 21:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 05.07.2016 23:07, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It >> was merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great >> conspiracy. > > But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to maintain The > Great Conspiracy for more than a century! Not really, A much greater conspiracy is still very effectively covering up an otherwise insignificant event that occurred precisely nine months BC. ...and lots of people, particularly naive Norwegians, still fall for that!!! > You know, very close to all scientists accept GR as a valid, > thoroughly tested and never falsified theory. There are only a very > few uneducated geniuses like Henry George Wilson who have realized > that all the experiments ever done are faked and are parts of The > Great Conspiracy. Well done Henry! It is easy to fake any experiment that is working on the very edge of accuracy and for which the desired result is already known. > Some of the faked experiments: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html ...Hahaha! Not Paul Andersen's Famous Fairy Tales again...! > Impressive how many experiments have been faked to maintain the > conspiracy, isn't it? Well the experiments themselves are not always faked but the way Einstein's name is falsely associated with every new physics development is clear evidence of a great conspiracy. LIGO is the latest example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 14:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlljds$6cd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #387313 |
On 06.07.2016 21:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 06/07/16 21:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 05.07.2016 23:07, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It >>> was merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great >>> conspiracy. >> >> But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to maintain The >> Great Conspiracy for more than a century! >> You know, very close to all scientists accept GR as a valid, >> thoroughly tested and never falsified theory. There are only a very >> few uneducated geniuses like Henry George Wilson who have realized >> that all the experiments ever done are faked and are parts of The >> Great Conspiracy. Well done Henry! > > It is easy to fake any experiment that is working on the very edge of > accuracy and for which the desired result is already known. Most experiments are not 'working on the very edge of accuracy'. Take for example the PPN parameter gamma. Newton predicts gamma = 0 while GR predicts gamma = 1. https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf gamma = 0.997 +/- 0.003 (visible light) https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf gamma = 0.999987 +/- 0.000052 (microwave) https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf gamma = 0.9998 +/- 0.0003 (microwave) GR is confirmed within 5E-5 while Newton is wrong by more than 20000 times the error bar. The PPN gamma is determined by thousands of measurements made by a high number of observatories. All the thousands of measurements made by all the observatories must be faked! That's not easy! The Great Conspiracy has made a fabulous job in keeping the truth hidden! Don't you agree? > >> Some of the faked experiments: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html > > ...Hahaha! Not Paul Andersen's Famous Fairy Tales again...! Not fairy tales, FAKED experiments! All the thousands of physicists that have made experiments that test SR/GR have for more than a century FAKED the experiments. If they haven't done so, SR/GR must be correct. And that's impossible, isn't it? >> Impressive how many experiments have been faked to maintain the >> conspiracy, isn't it? > Well the experiments themselves are not always faked but the way > Einstein's name is falsely associated with every new physics development > is clear evidence of a great conspiracy. LIGO is the latest example. The experiments show that the measurements are in accordance with the predictions of SR/GR. There are no other theories which are in accordance with all the experiments. That means that SR/GR is the only theory that isn't falsified. And since it takes but one experiment to falsify a theory the only way SR/GR can be wrong is if ALL the experiments are faked. That's what you are claiming, isn't it? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 10:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nls3d2$evo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387375 |
On 07/07/16 22:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 06.07.2016 21:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> It is easy to fake any experiment that is working on the very edge >> of accuracy and for which the desired result is already known. > > Most experiments are not 'working on the very edge of accuracy'. > Take for example the PPN parameter gamma. Newton predicts gamma = 0 > while GR predicts gamma = 1. > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf gamma = 0.997 +/- > 0.003 (visible light) https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > gamma = 0.999987 +/- 0.000052 (microwave) > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf gamma = 0.9998 +/- 0.0003 > (microwave) Excellent examples of the way in which statistics can be manipulated to produce any desired answer.... > GR is confirmed within 5E-5 while Newton is wrong by more than 20000 > times the error bar. The PPN gamma is determined by thousands of > measurements made by a high number of observatories. All the > thousands of measurements made by all the observatories must be > faked! That's not easy! The Great Conspiracy has made a fabulous job > in keeping the truth hidden! > > Don't you agree? Paul, until the ONE-Way light speed from a moving source is DIRECTLY measured, the whole of Einstein's crap will remain in the realms of science fiction. Light speed comparison experiments, using variable stars, already show quite convincingly that light is source dependent...as it must be. >>> Some of the faked experiments: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html >> >> ...Hahaha! Not Paul Andersen's Famous Fairy Tales again...! > > Not fairy tales, FAKED experiments! All the thousands of physicists > that have made experiments that test SR/GR have for more than a > century FAKED the experiments. If they haven't done so, SR/GR must > be correct. And that's impossible, isn't it? > >>> Impressive how many experiments have been faked to maintain the >>> conspiracy, isn't it? > >> Well the experiments themselves are not always faked but the way >> Einstein's name is falsely associated with every new physics >> development is clear evidence of a great conspiracy. LIGO is the >> latest example. > > The experiments show that the measurements are in accordance with > the predictions of SR/GR. The experiments show that the conspirators are becoming more desperate than ever as the truth begins to filter through their tightly controlled veil of secrecy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 14:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nltg46$2gb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #387496 |
On 10.07.2016 02:03, HGW wrote: > On 07/07/16 22:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 06.07.2016 21:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> It is easy to fake any experiment that is working on the very edge >>> of accuracy and for which the desired result is already known. >> >> Most experiments are not 'working on the very edge of accuracy'. >> Take for example the PPN parameter gamma. Newton predicts gamma = 0 >> while GR predicts gamma = 1. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf gamma = 0.997 +/- >> 0.003 (visible light) https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >> gamma = 0.999987 +/- 0.000052 (microwave) >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf gamma = 0.9998 +/- 0.0003 >> (microwave) > > Excellent examples of the way in which statistics can be manipulated to > produce any desired answer.... But Ralph, you know this is nonsense! You can't seriously claim that a set of measurements of gamma with a real average of gamma = 0 (as predicted by Newton) can be statistically manipulated to give an average of gamma = 0.9998. The truth must obviously be that all the thousands of measurements are FAKED! Don't you agree? >> GR is confirmed within 5E-5 while Newton is wrong by more than 20000 >> times the error bar. The PPN gamma is determined by thousands of >> measurements made by a high number of observatories. All the >> thousands of measurements made by all the observatories must be >> faked! That's not easy! The Great Conspiracy has made a fabulous job >> in keeping the truth hidden! >> >> Don't you agree? > > Paul, until the ONE-Way light speed from a moving source is DIRECTLY > measured, the whole of Einstein's crap will remain in the realms of > science fiction. Quite. Of course _all_ the thousands of measurements which are in accordance with the predictions of GR _must_ be faked because Einstein's crap is in the realm of science fiction and _must_ be wrong! Don't you agree? > Light speed comparison experiments, using variable stars, already show > quite convincingly that light is source dependent...as it must be. Quite. Since the observed light curves and spectra from variable stars like cepheids and eclipsing variables are extremely well explained by astronomers who use GR, while the the same astronomers claim never to have observed the crazy light curves and spectra predicted by emission theories, it is clear that all the billions of observations made by astronomers _must_ be faked because the speed of light _must_ be source dependent. Don't you agree? > > >>>> Some of the faked experiments: >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html >>> >>> ...Hahaha! Not Paul Andersen's Famous Fairy Tales again...! >> >> Not fairy tales, FAKED experiments! All the thousands of physicists >> that have made experiments that test SR/GR have for more than a >> century FAKED the experiments. If they haven't done so, SR/GR must >> be correct. And that's impossible, isn't it? >> >>>> Impressive how many experiments have been faked to maintain the >>>> conspiracy, isn't it? >> >>> Well the experiments themselves are not always faked but the way >>> Einstein's name is falsely associated with every new physics >>> development is clear evidence of a great conspiracy. LIGO is the >>> latest example. >> >> The experiments show that the measurements are in accordance with >> the predictions of SR/GR. > > The experiments show that the conspirators are becoming more desperate > than ever as the truth begins to filter through their tightly controlled > veil of secrecy. Indeed. The fact that the Great Conspiracy for more than a century have faked all the billions of astronomical observations that are in accordance with the predictions of GR, and have faked all the measurements from every experiment testing SR and GR, it is pretty clear that the conspirators must be pretty desperate when a genius like Doctor Of Science Ralph Malcom Rabbidge threatens to reveal the truth. All the physicist in the whole world are afraid of the great Doctor of Science, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge. You know that, don't you? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 05:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0qn5$svh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387511 |
On 10/07/16 22:47, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 10.07.2016 02:03, HGW wrote: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf gamma = 0.997 +/- >>> 0.003 (visible light) https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >>> gamma = 0.999987 +/- 0.000052 (microwave) >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf gamma = 0.9998 +/- 0.0003 >>> (microwave) >> >> Excellent examples of the way in which statistics can be manipulated to >> produce any desired answer.... > > But Henry, you know this is nonsense! > You can't seriously claim that a set of measurements of gamma > with a real average of gamma = 0 (as predicted by Newton) > can be statistically manipulated to give an average of > gamma = 0.9998. > > The truth must obviously be that all the thousands > of measurements are FAKED! > > Don't you agree? Well, faked is probably not the best word. The interpretations are faked, not the actual experiments. It is not hard to do that when you are working right on the limits of accuracy and you know the answer that best supports the conspiracy. >> >> Paul, until the ONE-Way light speed from a moving source is DIRECTLY >> measured, the whole of Einstein's crap will remain in the realms of >> science fiction. > > Quite. > Of course _all_ the thousands of measurements which are in > accordance with the predictions of GR _must_ be faked > because Einstein's crap is in the realm of science fiction > and _must_ be wrong! > > Don't you agree? Of course I agree. Nobody ever uses GR in real life so nobody cares if it is right or wrong. GR's sole purpose is to keep the name Einstein at the top of the world's intellectual ladder. Anything that appears to support GR will be published without question by he conspirators who own all the journals. One only has to read any of the papers in your fairytale collection to see how unconvincing they all are. >> Light speed comparison experiments, using variable stars, already show >> quite convincingly that light is source dependent...as it must be. > > Quite. > Since the observed light curves and spectra from variable stars > like cepheids and eclipsing variables are extremely well explained > by astronomers who use GR, while the the same astronomers claim > never to have observed the crazy light curves and spectra predicted > by emission theories, it is clear that all the billions of observations > made by astronomers _must_ be faked because the speed of light _must_ be > source dependent. > > Don't you agree? Hahaha! Not so fast Paul! Generally speaking, astronomers are completely mystified by all variable star behavior and have no sensible theory to explain them. They go to great trouble trying... and nobody cares much what they say because nobody can prove them right or wrong and it all ads to the entertainment and helps to attract funding. >>> The experiments show that the measurements are in accordance with >>> the predictions of SR/GR. >> >> The experiments show that the conspirators are becoming more desperate >> than ever as the truth begins to filter through their tightly controlled >> veil of secrecy. > > Indeed. > The fact that the Great Conspiracy for more than a century > have faked all the billions of astronomical observations that > are in accordance with the predictions of GR, and have faked > all the measurements from every experiment testing SR and GR, > it is pretty clear that the conspirators must be pretty desperate > when a genius like Doctor Of Science Henry George Wilson threatens > to reveal the truth. I have revealed it. It is no threat. Einstein's RoS, on which his whole theory depends, is logically impossible. > All the physicist in the whole world are afraid of the great > Doctor of Science, Henry George Wilson. You seem to be under the impression that I am a lone voice in the Einstein exposure campaign. It is quite clear that already, the whole Einsteinian empire is crumbling. > > You know that, don't you? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 23:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm11fn$2m6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #387604 |
On 11.07.2016 21:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 10/07/16 22:47, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 10.07.2016 02:03, HGW wrote: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf gamma = 0.997 +/- >>>> 0.003 (visible light) https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >>>> gamma = 0.999987 +/- 0.000052 (microwave) >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf gamma = 0.9998 +/- 0.0003 >>>> (microwave) >>> >>> Excellent examples of the way in which statistics can be manipulated to >>> produce any desired answer.... >> >> But Henry, you know this is nonsense! >> You can't seriously claim that a set of measurements of gamma >> with a real average of gamma = 0 (as predicted by Newton) >> can be statistically manipulated to give an average of >> gamma = 0.9998. >> >> The truth must obviously be that all the thousands >> of measurements are FAKED! >> >> Don't you agree? > > Well, faked is probably not the best word. The interpretations are > faked, not the actual experiments. It is not hard to do that when you > are working right on the limits of accuracy and you know the answer that > best supports the conspiracy. So you say that the measured data are not faked, but the interpretations are faked. https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf Let's have a look at these data and their interpretation. The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, M is the mass of the Sun, r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation above and gamma can be determined. The result is that gamma = 0.997 +/- 0.003 This means that the measured angles are very close to the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", quite the contrary. The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is 300 times the error bar too small. So Ralph, I challenge you to explain how the interpretation can be faked if the data are not. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 08:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nm3qda$1ci0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387623 |
On 12/07/16 07:01, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 11.07.2016 21:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > Let's have a look at these data and their interpretation. > > The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from > a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: > > deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) > > where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, > M is the mass of the Sun, > r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, > X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. > > gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: > If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, > if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. > > Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with > extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made > by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find > how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. Absolute crap. > These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation > above and gamma can be determined. > > The result is that gamma = 0.997 +/- 0.003 > > This means that the measured angles are very close to > the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. > > These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", > quite the contrary. > The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and > the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is > 300 times the error bar too small. > What a load of crap. They have no idea where the stars should be and so have no idea of the actual deflection...which is far too small to be observed anyway.. Typical conspiracy stuff.... Try again , Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 21:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm63er$noj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #387664 |
On 13.07.2016 00:19, HGW wrote: > On 12/07/16 07:01, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 11.07.2016 21:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Well, faked is probably not the best word. The interpretations are >>> faked, not the actual experiments. It is not hard to do that when you >>> are working right on the limits of accuracy and you know the answer that >>> best supports the conspiracy. >> >> So you say that the measured data are not faked, >> but the interpretations are faked. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> Let's have a look at these data and their interpretation. >> >> The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from >> a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: >> >> deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) >> >> where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, >> M is the mass of the Sun, >> r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, >> X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. >> >> gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: >> If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, >> if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. >> >> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with >> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made >> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find >> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. >> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation >> above and gamma can be determined. >> >> The result is that gamma = 0.997 +/- 0.003 >> >> This means that the measured angles are very close to >> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. >> >> These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", >> quite the contrary. >> The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and >> the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is >> 300 times the error bar too small. >> > > What a load of crap. They have no idea where the stars should be and so > have no idea of the actual deflection...which is far too small to be > observed anyway.. Definitely one of your better, Ralph! :-D You are most funny when you don't try! > > Typical conspiracy stuff.... > > Try again , Paul. Thanks for the illuminating demonstration of your inability to give a rational argument for why the following interpretation of the Hipparcos data is faked: The measured gravitational deflections of the light from 87382 stars are in accordance with the predictions of GR and twice the predictions of Newtonian gravitation. I rest my case. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97f7781a-1826-4723-be87-9cf5a29179f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387623 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 lipca 2016 23:01:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with > extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made > by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find > how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. You forget to write, however, that according to your Shit the paths of light in vacuum are straight lines of non-euclidean space. Your "deflection" shows once again, that even morons like you are not stupid enough to treat the revolutionary concepts of The Shit seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25a967fe-fb85-460e-b39b-a0c75ae5eb38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387281 |
On July 6, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Relativity plays no part in the operation of the GPS system. It was >> merely associated with it to enhance the power of the great conspiracy. > > But you must admit that it is quite an achievement to > maintain The Great Conspiracy for more than a century! Even older than Area 51! (ask him about that) > There are only a very few uneducated geniuses like > Ralph Malcom Rabbidge who have realized that all the experiments > ever done are faked and are parts of The Great Conspiracy. I'm unsure whether he believes his ravings - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web