Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #388381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-25 12:12 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-08-08 10:16 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 168 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:12 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 09:12 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 01:44 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-28 19:58 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:16 -0500
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 02:42 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 16:38 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:55 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-29 08:12 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-28 15:33 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 03:09 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-29 22:35 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 06:15 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-30 05:04 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 06:22 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-30 08:24 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:02 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:21 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:45 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:19 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-30 06:34 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:29 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-31 22:33 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:10 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 06:45 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-30 06:22 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 05:15 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 14:00 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:43 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 08:38 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:44 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-06 12:27 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-06 22:04 +0200
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:58 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 10:11 +0200
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:25 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:41 -0500
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-08 06:44 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:49 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-12 09:58 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 08:25 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:54 -0500
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 23:37 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 05:44 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:58 -0500
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:46 -0500
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-08 06:58 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 23:54 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 10:45 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:39 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:45 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-13 08:50 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 18:15 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-13 10:02 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 20:59 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 06:16 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:48 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 20:03 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-14 05:58 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-15 05:00 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-14 15:37 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:41 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 05:50 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:01 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-28 11:27 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-29 09:09 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 09:04 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-30 05:16 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 06:28 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 01:47 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 04:46 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:39 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-31 22:14 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:15 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 17:56 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:07 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-07 11:27 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-08 07:13 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 21:56 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:09 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-09 01:46 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:52 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-09 22:38 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-09 14:25 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-10 08:52 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 04:21 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 00:19 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-11 06:39 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:33 -0500
Einstein and quantum entanglement (was: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-10 20:04 +0200
Re: Einstein and quantum entanglement Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:15 -0500
Re: Einstein and quantum entanglement "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-11 06:39 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-28 19:33 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-07-29 08:24 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-28 15:46 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-29 22:17 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-29 07:32 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-30 05:30 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-29 15:19 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-31 22:18 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-02 11:43 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-30 08:22 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-07-31 22:57 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 07:18 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-01 06:37 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 23:05 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-01 09:39 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-02 21:41 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-03 15:39 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-05 06:52 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-04 14:08 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-05 19:45 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-05 06:43 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-06 06:41 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-05 14:16 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-04 21:54 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-05 20:33 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-06 07:17 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 16:27 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-05 15:12 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-07 06:46 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-06 21:50 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-07 07:22 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 10:44 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-08 06:36 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-08 15:50 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-09 01:23 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-08 21:59 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-09 22:33 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-09 21:52 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 15:41 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-10 08:48 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-10 08:46 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-10 09:50 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-11 06:34 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-11 06:21 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:42 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-12 09:44 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:16 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 04:39 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-13 08:28 +1000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 17:40 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-11 12:22 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-11 19:42 +0200
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 17:55 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-11 12:00 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-12 09:50 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 04:32 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-13 08:41 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-12 16:17 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 05:41 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-13 13:19 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 06:44 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-13 15:07 -0700
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:33 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 02:35 +0000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-14 05:39 +1000
Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:05 +0000
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 22:43 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-07 10:05 +0200
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 22:46 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 22:26 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:55 -0500
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 22:25 -0700
Re: For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:16 -0500
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:12 -0500 |
| Subject | For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson |
| Message-ID | <nn5hag$17tr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Henry, Face facts. When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing produced by that enterprise is true. Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, four spades short of a full deck. I'm going to guess that you know this. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nnbf43$1u6d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388381 |
On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Henry, > > Face facts. > > When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of > the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no > experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity > claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been > fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of > people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying > that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a > handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing > produced by that enterprise is true. Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations of the result certainly are. Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly referred to as the aether. Since there is no evidence that such a medium exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not, there is no reason to believe that any of Einstein's theories can be correct. > Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and > widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly > assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, > four spades short of a full deck. I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than supporters in the world. > I'm going to guess that you know this. Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 01:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnbo2e$g9o$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388543 |
"HGW." <hw@....> writes:
>Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory
>is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
>supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly
>referred to as the aether.
, __ _ _
/|/ \ | | | |
|___/ __, | | _ | |
| \ / | |/ |/ \_|/ \
| \_/\_/|_/|__/|__/ | |_/
/|
,__ __ \| _
/| | | | | | |
| | | __, | | __ __ | | _ _ _
| | | / | |/ / / \_|/ / |/ |/ |
| | |_/\_/|_/|__/\___/\__/ |__/ | | |_/
, __ _ _
/|/ \ | | | | o |
|___/ __, | | | | __| __, _
| \ / | |/ \_|/ \_| / | / | |/
| \_/\_/|_/\_/ \_/ |_/\_/|_/\_/|/|__/o
/| /
\|
you have been told many, many times, Ralph Rabbidge, that Einstein
explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, how many times do you have to read his statement:
"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." before you get it through your thick head, Ralph,
that Einstein's theory, Ralph, does not use any sort of 'universal light
carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Ralph Rabbidge.
> Since there is no evidence that such a medium
>exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I'm glad you agree with Einstein on something
for once, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, maybe someday you'll actually
read some scientific literature for once, Ralph, and from it, you may
find a few other things you agree with Einstein, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
>> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
>> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
>> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck.
>I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than
>supporters in the world.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, just because there are a ton of iron filings stuck
to a magnet doesn't mean the world is covered with iron filings, Ralph.
In the same way, Ralph, just because there are a ton of anti-Einstein
kooks stuck to the kook magnet called sci.physics.relativity or in your
asylum doesn't mean there are an awful lot of them elsewhere, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge.
>> I'm going to guess that you know this.
>Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the
>daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go
>ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause.
Like that computer you are typing on to rail against relativity, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge? Or that GPS voice directing you back to the asylum
so that you can be properly locked up at night, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:58 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnckvp$1bjf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388550 |
On 28/07/16 11:44, Michael Moron-y wrote: > "HGW." <hw@....> writes: > you have been told many, many times, Henry George Wilson, that Einstein > explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Henry George Wilson, > how many times do you have to read his statement: > "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." before you get it through your thick head, Henry, > that Einstein's theory, Henry , does not use any sort of 'universal light > carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Henry George Wilson. Einstein was a very confused man. He wanted to cling to the findings of Lorentz and Poincare but was very much influenced by Walter Ritz. So he tried to combine bits of LET and True relativity, AKA the ballistic theory of light. That is why he got himself in such a mess. Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away completely. He just meant that it was not needed, apart from providing the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnd44c$5c3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388567 |
On 7/28/2016 4:58 AM, HGW. wrote: > Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away > completely. He just meant that it was not needed, Note "not needed" > apart from providing > the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2. Note needed. Henry, the only person here that is confused is you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 02:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnefrh$t07$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388567 |
"HGW." <hw@....> writes:
>On 28/07/16 11:44, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:
>> you have been told many, many times, Henry George Wilson, that Einstein
>> explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Henry George Wilson,
>> how many times do you have to read his statement:
>> "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." before you get it through your thick head, Henry,
>> that Einstein's theory, Henry , does not use any sort of 'universal light
>> carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Henry George Wilson.
__, _, _, __, _,_ _, _ _, _, _, _, _, _, _
|_) /_\ | |_) |_| |\/| /_\ | / ` / \ | |\/|
| \ | | | , | | | | | | | | , \ , \ / | , | |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
__, _, __, __, _ __, _, __,
|_) /_\ |_) |_) | | \ / _ |_
| \ | | |_) |_) | |_/ \ / |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
I guess you really love this abuse, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph,
I know I asked this before, Ralph, but I will ask again, Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph, your buddy Einstein was attributed as saying: "Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results",
Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are doing the same thing over and over
again, Ralph, so I must ask, Ralph. Do you expect different results
each time, Ralph? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I have told you repeatedly,
Ralph, not to expect any different results, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Each time you mess with my quotes, Ralph, I wall plaster your name
(which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) all over my next reply, Ralph.
So Ralph, you either love this abuse, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, or you
are insane, according to your buddy Einstein, Ralph.
>Einstein was a very confused man.
No, Ralph. It is you who is confused, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, you
read Einstein writing "the aether was 'superfluous'" and somehow come up
with "the aether is necessary", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, you can't
get more confused than that, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
>Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away
>completely.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, yes it does, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge,
saying the aether was 'superfluous' means it is totally unnecessary,
Ralph, and it has no influence whatsoever, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
> He just meant that it was not needed, apart from providing
>the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2.
No, Ralph. He meant that it was not needed AT ALL, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, YOU need the aether to try to rationalize a constant speed of
light, Ralph Rabbidge. But that is YOUR flaw, Ralph, so don't try to
project your flaw onto Einstein, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7c645dc-b971-428f-a296-b3550e85a861@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388543 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:12:08 PM UTC-7, HGW. wrote: > ... Einstein's whole theory > is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is > supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly > referred to as the aether. "Albert Einstein published in September 1905 what is now called special relativity, which was based on a radical new application of the relativity principle in connection with the constancy of the speed of light. In special relativity, the space and time coordinates depend on the inertial observer's frame of reference, and the luminiferous aether plays NO ROLE in the physics." Once an idiot always an idiot. Have you even read the document?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnd2su$3er$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388543 |
On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Henry, >> >> Face facts. >> >> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of >> the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no >> experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity >> claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been >> fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of >> people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying >> that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a >> handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing >> produced by that enterprise is true. > > Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations > of the result certainly are. If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly agrees with a theory. > > Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory > is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is > supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources. Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in your mind? Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, four spades short of a full deck? > .. commonly > referred to as the aether. Since there is no evidence that such a medium > exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not, there is no > reason to believe that any of Einstein's theories can be correct. > >> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and >> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly >> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, >> four spades short of a full deck. > > I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than > supporters in the world. > >> I'm going to guess that you know this. > > Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the > daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go > ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 08:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nne007$1g40$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388577 |
On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: >> >> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the >> interpretations of the result certainly are. > > If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of > fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to > MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly > agrees with a theory. Error bars have no place in physics. There is only right or wrong. Statistics is the fakers right hand. >> Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole >> theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying >> medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all >> sources. > > Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this > medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = > "superfluous" in your mind? The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for word, you would know what I am talking about. > Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment > that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, > four spades short of a full deck? Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83e71007-601c-4796-beef-f60d5dffcd1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388619 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:12:28 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote: > > On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > > > > > > Well the experiments might not always be faked but the > > > interpretations of the result certainly are. > > > > If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of > > fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to > > MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly > > agrees with a theory. > > Error bars have no place in physics. Hahahahaha!!!! > There is only right or wrong. If so, then Ralphie-boy is wrong. > Statistics is the fakers right hand. “Statistics don’t lie …. But they sure shoot off their mouth a lot!” -- Peanuts > > > Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole > > > theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying > > > medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all > > > sources. > > > > Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this > > medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = > > "superfluous" in your mind? > > The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. It says right out that it doesn't matter, makes no difference ... which means that it doesn't affect light in any way. > If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for > word, you would know what I am talking about. You are talking baloney. So are you saying that Poincare was wrong, too? > > Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment > > that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, > > four spades short of a full deck? > > Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly... It fits ALL of the stupid anti-relativity cranks like you, Seto, Valev, Wozniak and a few other denizens that infest this group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 03:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnehe5$t07$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388619 |
"HGW." <hw@....> writes:
>On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
>> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
>> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
>> agrees with a theory.
>Error bars have no place in physics.
>There is only right or wrong.
__, _, _, __, _,_ _, _ _, _, _, _, _, _, _
|_) /_\ | |_) |_| |\/| /_\ | / ` / \ | |\/|
| \ | | | , | | | | | | | | , \ , \ / | , | |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
__, _, __, __, _ __, _, __,
|_) /_\ |_) |_) | | \ / _ |_
| \ | | |_) |_) | |_/ \ / |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
I guess this proves that you are no scientist, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, every scientist and engineer knows that every measurement is
not going to be exact, Ralph. Ralph, scientists and engineers keep
track of errors in error bars so they know whether the answers they
come up with are significant or just crap caused by measurement errors,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, in the case of the steller deflection
measurements, Ralph, 0.997 is much closer to the 1 predicted by GR than
it is to the 0 predicted by Newtonian physics, Ralph Rabbidge.
>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this
>> medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" =
>> "superfluous" in your mind?
>The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has
no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect
on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Again, Ralph, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not
Einstein's, Ralph. Ralph, you are projecting your shortcoming onto
Einstein, Ralph. BTW, Ralph, such projection is frequently associated
with insanity, the insane frequently project their faults onto others,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
>> Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
>> that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck?
>Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly...
As followers of Herbert Dingle (also known as Dingleberries in his
honor) are anti-relativists, yes, Ralph, this discription does describe
Dingleberries such as yourself, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, many other Dingleberries here, such as Valev and Wozniak, match
this description perfectly, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 22:35 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnfii7$1d4u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388630 |
On 29/07/16 13:09, Michael Moron-y wrote: > "HGW." <hw@....> writes: > >> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. > > Henry, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has > no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect > on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Henry George Wilson. Poor fellow! The only non-superfluous function of the (non-existent) aether was its ability to unify the speed of light emitted by all sources. By assuming its existence, Einstein was able to include source independence in his postulate and then state that it was superfluous. > Again, Henry, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not > Einstein's, Henry. Henry, you are projecting your shortcoming onto > Einstein, Henry. Please don't write my name right next to Einstein's please. I find that offensive ...and I don't want his already false image to benefit from any inferred association.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 06:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Poor, pitiable Ralph Rabbidge |
| Message-ID | <nnhgmi$35s$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388640 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>On 29/07/16 13:09, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
>>
>> Henry, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has
>> no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect
>> on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Henry George Wilson.
____ _ _
| _ \ __ _| |_ __ | |__
| |_) / _` | | '_ \| '_ \
| _ < (_| | | |_) | | | |
|_| \_\__,_|_| .__/|_| |_|
|_|
__ __ _ _
| \/ | __ _| | ___ ___ | |_ __ ___
| |\/| |/ _` | |/ __/ _ \| | '_ ` _ \
| | | | (_| | | (_| (_) | | | | | | |
|_| |_|\__,_|_|\___\___/|_|_| |_| |_|
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ __ _| |__ | |__ (_) __| | __ _ ___
| |_) / _` | '_ \| '_ \| |/ _` |/ _` |/ _ \
| _ < (_| | |_) | |_) | | (_| | (_| | __/_
|_| \_\__,_|_.__/|_.__/|_|\__,_|\__, |\___( )
|___/ |/
cut it out, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
>Poor fellow! The only
non-superfluous function of the (non-existent)
>aether was its ability to unify the speed of light emitted by all
>sources. By assuming its existence, Einstein was able to include source
>independence in his postulate and then state that it was superfluous.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, there is simply no need for any aether to assume
P2, Ralph. Ralph, one simply assumes P2, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, that
is exactly what Einstein did, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, he simply dispensed
with the aether and assumed P2, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, maybe
your feeble mind needs an aether to comprehend P2, but don't project
your needs onto Einstein, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, that type
of projection is a sign of mental illness, Ralph.
>> Again, Henry, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not
>> Einstein's, Henry. Henry, you are projecting your shortcoming onto
>> Einstein, Henry.
>Please don't write my name right next to Einstein's please.
Ralph, you mean when I wrote "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" next to Einstein's
name, Ralph? Ralph, it was YOU not me who wrote "Henry Wilson" next to
Einstein's name, Ralph, but you blamed me for writing "Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge" there, Ralph. At least you finally admit your name is "Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge" and not "Henry Wilson" by blaming me, Ralph.
BTW Ralph, why are you so ashamed of your name "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge"?
> I find that
>offensive
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you're right, Ralph, writing the name "Einstein"
near "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" is a definite insult to the name of
Einstein, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I'll try not to do so as much
from now on, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfntj$1m7s$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388619 |
On 7/28/2016 5:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > >>> >>> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the >>> interpretations of the result certainly are. >> >> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of >> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to >> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly >> agrees with a theory. > > Error bars have no place in physics. Henry, shame on you. Even in 19th century physics, which you adore, experimental physicists knew better than to quote a measured result without an error bar. Every freshman physics student learning 19th century physics learns in teaching laboratories that reporting results without error bars is a no-no. I assumed you had taken freshman physics and learned these basic experimental skills. > There is only right or wrong. > > Statistics is the fakers right hand. > >>> Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole >>> theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying >>> medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all >>> sources. >> >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this >> medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = >> "superfluous" in your mind? > > The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. Only that it's not needed. But you claimed it was central to the theory. That is, needed. In fact, you said within the same sentence that the medium was not needed AND needed. Do you understand how this makes you look? > If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for > word, you would know what I am talking about. > >> Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment >> that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, >> four spades short of a full deck? > > Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly... > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nng9a9$i9k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388658 |
On 30/07/16 00:06, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/28/2016 5:12 PM, HGW. wrote: >> On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the >>>> interpretations of the result certainly are. >>> >>> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of >>> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to >>> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly >>> agrees with a theory. >> >> Error bars have no place in physics. > > Henry, shame on you. Even in 19th century physics, which you adore, > experimental physicists knew better than to quote a measured result > without an error bar. Every freshman physics student learning 19th > century physics learns in teaching laboratories that reporting results > without error bars is a no-no. Bodkin, physicists conceive new concepts, devise new experiments and work out how to interpret them. The lackeys like Paul Andersen, PD and Tom Roberts do all that routine measuring stuff. > I assumed you had taken freshman physics and learned these basic > experimental skills. > >> There is only right or wrong. >> >> Statistics is the fakers right hand. >> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. > > Only that it's not needed. But you claimed it was central to the theory. > That is, needed. In fact, you said within the same sentence that the > medium was not needed AND needed. Do you understand how this makes you > look? It IS just as central to Einstein's plagiarized version of Poincare's theory as it was in the original Lorentz's. >> If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for >> word, you would know what I am talking about. >> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 06:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnhh38$35s$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #388707 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 30/07/16 00:06, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist. >> >> Only that it's not needed. But you claimed it was central to the theory. >> That is, needed. In fact, you said within the same sentence that the >> medium was not needed AND needed. Do you understand how this makes you >> look? >It IS just as central to Einstein's plagiarized version of Poincare's >theory as it was in the original Lorentz's. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it's obviously not "central" since Einstein explicitly dispenses with the aether right up front and never referred to it again, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, nor did he use any theory that depended on the aether, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. >>> If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for >>> word, you would know what I am talking about. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, Einstein derived the Lorentz math separately and that is what made his theory stand out, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, for the first time, there was a theory with no need for the aether, Ralph. That is why Einstein's SR is important, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 08:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnhh68$q53$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #388619 |
On 29.07.2016 00:12, HGW. wrote: > > Error bars have no place in physics. > There is only right or wrong. > :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ad715e0-edf1-4d2f-9d5e-50de74c407ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388577 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:55:46 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > > On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Henry, > >> > >> Face facts. > >> > >> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of > >> the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no > >> experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity > >> claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been > >> fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of > >> people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying > >> that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a > >> handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing > >> produced by that enterprise is true. > > > > Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations > > of the result certainly are. > > If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of > fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to > MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly > agrees with a theory. > > > > > Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory > > is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is > > supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources. > > Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in > your mind? But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame. So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable. > > Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment > that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, four > spades short of a full deck? > > > .. commonly > > referred to as the aether. Since there is no evidence that such a medium > > exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not, there is no > > reason to believe that any of Einstein's theories can be correct. > > > >> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and > >> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly > >> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, > >> four spades short of a full deck. > > > > I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than > > supporters in the world. > > > >> I'm going to guess that you know this. > > > > Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the > > daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go > > ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause. > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 09:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfopr$1nb4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388654 |
On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in >> > your mind? > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame. That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether frame. It's like asserting that having wings is exclusive to angels, and therefore hummingbirds are angels. > So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f4cc2da-4120-47a2-aa4b-a88adbac99a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388666 |
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium > >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in > >> > your mind? > > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame. > > That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether > frame. By definition constant isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be the properties of a stationary aether. Sony frame that have the same isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be in the aether frame. > > It's like asserting that having wings is exclusive to angels, and > therefore hummingbirds are angels. > > > So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web