Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc56fd70-9290-408c-90da-f46a5dc0929c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394561 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/1/16 10/1/16 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:04:54 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving > >> sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent > >> with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. > > > > But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > > Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, > and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are > synchronized. So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >Such measurements cannot distinguish among competing theories, so > there's little point in measuring OWLS. But measuring the speed of light emitted > from a moving source can distinguish among some theories, and for fast sources > (v ~ 0.9 c) the errorbars don't need to be very small. For instance, they refute > Wilson's fantasies, even though he chooses to remain ignorant and ignore this fact. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68aa1fb0-279a-489c-9f6b-58ba235683fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394604 |
W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 17:27:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 10/1/16 10/1/16 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:04:54 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving > > >> sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent > > >> with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. > > > > > > But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > > > > Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, > > and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are > > synchronized. > > So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. therefore the result is correct: c +/- v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nss1mj$5cd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394606 |
On 03/10/16 02:33, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 17:27:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: >> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. >>> >>> Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, >>> and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are >>> synchronized. >> >> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > > The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. > therefore the result is correct: c +/- v. Not really. It just proves that wavelength is absolute. I think you mean the MMX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a827116c-26db-4e1d-bc3e-764393ca6a5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394647 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 00:28:39 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > On 03/10/16 02:33, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 17:27:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: > >> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >>>> But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > >>> > >>> Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, > >>> and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are > >>> synchronized. > >> > >> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > > > > The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. > > therefore the result is correct: c +/- v. > > Not really. It just proves that wavelength is absolute. > I think you mean the MMX. In the MM type measurement you measure the two-way speed, which is const, due to the contraction along the velocity vector v, which is constant: v = const; t1 = t2 for any configuration. But in the case of the Sagnac, you can measure a one-way speeds difference, because any rotating body is still stationary: the whole path length is preserved: L' = L, it's independent of a frame! thus finally you get: dt = L/c-v - L/c+v <> 0. In the MM: dt = L'/c-v - L''/c+v = 0; L' = L(f) - the length depends on the angle... the actual length is something like this: L(f) = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1-(v/c sinf)^2) f = 0: L( 0) = L sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/1 = L/gamma; it's contracted. f = 90: L(90) = L (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5/... = L; the perpendicular arm is not contracted at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt19kt$kvd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394725 |
On 04/10/16 05:05, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 00:28:39 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: >> On 03/10/16 02:33, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu niedziela, 2 października 2016 17:27:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał: >>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> >>>>>> But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, >>>>> and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are >>>>> synchronized. >>>> >>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >>> >>> The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. >>> therefore the result is correct: c +/- v. >> >> Not really. It just proves that wavelength is absolute. >> I think you mean the MMX. > > In the MM type measurement you measure the two-way speed, > which is const, due to the contraction along the velocity vector v, > which is constant: v = const; > t1 = t2 for any configuration. The MM COMPARED two speeds. It proved they didn't change....which should have been obvious because light moves at c relative to its source. > But in the case of the Sagnac, you can measure a one-way speeds > difference, because any rotating body is still stationary: > the whole path length is preserved: L' = L, > it's independent of a frame! > > thus finally you get: dt = L/c-v - L/c+v <> 0. > > In the MM: dt = L'/c-v - L''/c+v = 0; > L' = L(f) - the length depends on the angle... > > the actual length is something like this: > L(f) = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1-(v/c sinf)^2) > > f = 0: L( 0) = L sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/1 = L/gamma; it's contracted. > f = 90: L(90) = L (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5/... = L; the perpendicular arm is not contracted at all. Stop quoting aether theory. There is no aether. The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with the MMX experiment. Here is the correct analysis of the Sagnac effect: www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70ff89dd-858e-4e71-8eff-4f046b93bf4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394854 |
W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 00:14:58 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > > In the MM type measurement you measure the two-way speed, > > which is const, due to the contraction along the velocity vector v, > > which is constant: v = const; > > t1 = t2 for any configuration. > The MM COMPARED two speeds. It proved they didn't change....which should > have been obvious because light moves at c relative to its source. Two two-way speeds, not speeds. Look at this: c(f) = c/(1 + v/c cosf) then the c(f) <> c(f+180), but the average of the both is const: c, for any angle f. > Stop quoting aether theory. There is no aether. The Sagnac effect has > nothing to do with the MMX experiment. > Here is the correct analysis of the Sagnac effect: > > www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html There are milions of idiotic improvisation about the Sagnac. But a geometry is simple, thus the result is: t1-t2 = dt = L/c-v - L/(c+v); In the SR fantasy the result is the same, because the SR is nothing, just the sketch: c't -> ct', which nothing changes in the geometry, because the geometry is about distances, not about a time, nor speed. L = ct -> L' = c't, but an idiot can replace this by: L' = ct'; L' = L' is still the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt2ai0$2om$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394854 |
On 05.10.2016 00:14, HGW wrote: > > Here is the correct analysis of the Sagnac effect: > > www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > When you are through laughing: https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3t65$kea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394894 |
On 05/10/16 18:36, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 05.10.2016 00:14, HGW wrote: >> >> Here is the correct analysis of the Sagnac effect: >> >> www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >> > > When you are through laughing: > https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html Paul, I have been meaning to ask you this for a while. How does it feel to know that you are a always wrong? I must admit I have been wrong several times and know it is a bit of a setback but to do it with such regularity as you do, must be completely soul destroying. Has your loss of self esteem caused you to ever contemplate suicide? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt4t95$7jd$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394962 |
On 06.10.2016 00:00, HGW wrote: > On 05/10/16 18:36, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html See Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's lethal arguments for why the papers above are wrong: > Paul, I have been meaning to ask you this for a while. > How does it feel to know that you are a always wrong? > > I must admit I have been wrong several times and know it is a bit of a > setback but to do it with such regularity as you do, must be completely > soul destroying. Has your loss of self esteem caused you to ever > contemplate suicide? > Well done, Ralph! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oYqdneb5ipXE_2_KnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394606 |
On 10/2/16 10/2/16 10:33 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. NONSENSE. It does not measure speed at all, it measures fringe shifts. > therefore the result is correct: c +/- v. More nonsense. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2684771-1416-4659-856b-725ec681948e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394687 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 15:51:28 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 10/2/16 10/2/16 10:33 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > The Sagnac's setup measures one-way speed directly.. > > NONSENSE. It does not measure speed at all, it measures fringe shifts. wR = v -> c'+ = c-v, wrt the moving/rotating sourve when the signal goes forvard, and c'+ = c+v, backward. The final result, along a full path/circle, is just called as the Sagnac effect, which is independent of a frame of reference, because the measured pase is intependent - this is jus an absolute number!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstrd5$omf$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394604 |
On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:03:32 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, >> and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are >> synchronized. > > So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? Can you read a book about relativity? > >> Such measurements cannot distinguish among competing theories, so >> there's little point in measuring OWLS. But measuring the speed of light emitted >> from a moving source can distinguish among some theories, and for fast sources >> (v ~ 0.9 c) the errorbars don't need to be very small. For instance, they refute >> Wilson's fantasies, even though he chooses to remain ignorant and ignore this fact. >> >> Tom Roberts -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt55cd$921$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394703 |
On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > > Can you read a book about relativity? Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5o10$1cef$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394987 |
On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >> >> Can you read a book about relativity? > > Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? > I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92c60623-f79c-4bec-afc8-96d6fe2776b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395001 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > >> > >> Can you read a book about relativity? > > > > Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? > > > > I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. > I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt63a4$btv$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395016 |
On 10/6/2016 12:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> >>>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >>>> >>>> Can you read a book about relativity? >>> >>> Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? >>> >> >> I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. >> > > I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself. > Nor do you read any other books. Are they also for dummies? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <949b8caf-75db-4fcf-8cbd-01a794a2d954@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395017 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/6/2016 12:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > >>>> > >>>> Can you read a book about relativity? > >>> > >>> Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? > >>> > >> > >> I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. > >> > > > > I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself. > > > > Nor do you read any other books. Are they also for dummies? No they were written by fanatic SRians such as yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt663g$i6s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395020 |
On 10/6/2016 1:09 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/6/2016 12:54 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you read a book about relativity? >>>>> >>>>> Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. >>>> >>> >>> I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself. >>> >> >> Nor do you read any other books. Are they also for dummies? > > No they were written by fanatic SRians such as yourself. > So you do not read any physics books because they are either written for dummies or they are written by fanatics. Is that right, Ken? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4872a8ab-3d27-4ad2-8306-c956556c0053@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395022 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:45:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/6/2016 1:09 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/6/2016 12:54 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you read a book about relativity? > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself. > >>> > >> > >> Nor do you read any other books. Are they also for dummies? > > > > No they were written by fanatic SRians such as yourself. > > > > So you do not read any physics books because they are either written for > dummies or they are written by fanatics. Is that right, Ken? No.....it means that I am tired of your antic that every time I ask you a question you told me to read a book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt87bm$1v9e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395095 |
On 10/7/2016 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:45:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/6/2016 1:09 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:57:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/6/2016 12:54 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/6/2016 4:26 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/10/16 01:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/2/2016 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So can you give references that show OWLS have been measured directly? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you read a book about relativity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you lend him the one you learned from, "Physics for Dummies"? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have that one, but I doubt if Seto would read it anyway. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't read such books because they are for dummies such as yourself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nor do you read any other books. Are they also for dummies? >>> >>> No they were written by fanatic SRians such as yourself. >>> >> >> So you do not read any physics books because they are either written for >> dummies or they are written by fanatics. Is that right, Ken? > > No.....it means that I am tired of your antic that every time I ask you a > question you told me to read a book. But that's where the answers are, Ken. And books are what EVERY SINGLE PHYSICIST who has ever made a contribution to the field has used to get answers to their questions. You don't want to do that. You want answers on sci.physics.relativity. You will not get those answers on sci.physics.relativity. Therefore you will never make a contribution to the field. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web