Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418080 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 16:44 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 18:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 16:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 18:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 14:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 18:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 19:12 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 20:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:51 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 16:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 09:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 17:14 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-05 20:38 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:16 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 21:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 23:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-07 22:04 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 12:39 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-10 21:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 16:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:50 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 22:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 03:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 11:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 15:07 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:31 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:53 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 23:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:49 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 10:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 14:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-20 05:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 10:12 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 15:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:41 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 16:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 09:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:36 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 12:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:30 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 11:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 21:05 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 14:22 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:44 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 13:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 11:51 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 05:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:26 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 21:23 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:13 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:33 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:46 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:52 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:58 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 22:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:47 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 12:01 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-11 08:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-11 11:16 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 23:07 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:06 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 08:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-06 15:58 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 15:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-06 09:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 19:16 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-07 20:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:28 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 14:17 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:40 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 00:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-10 09:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:36 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:20 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 11:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 05:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:07 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 16:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 09:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 09:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:52 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 16:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 13:33 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 08:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 14:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:29 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:43 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 06:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-06 16:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 10:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-10 01:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:36 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 16:44 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-08 09:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:13 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 12:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-09 11:35 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:02 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate thailao2558@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 04:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-05-08 21:41 +1000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:52 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 14:00 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 14:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 23:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 11:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:43 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-06 08:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:25 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:18 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 20:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-06 10:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 12:59 -0700
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:43 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-14 19:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 20:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 16:49 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 18:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 17:37 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 20:57 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 19:15 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 15:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:17 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:39 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-16 18:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-15 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeivct$94a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418316 |
Paparios wrote: >> I think you've made a wrong judgment there. >> Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. >> Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is >> why many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers >> for the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other > journals. None of them has charged me a dime. Links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozt5uGbTBm0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2c9090b-8377-4ae2-82f0-0d2e4ebe2a97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418316 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. What journal would you recommend for my paper? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 16:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oekm17$i6k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418386 |
Op 06-mei-2017 om 16:03 schreef Ed Lake: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: >>> On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: >>>> None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. >>>> >>> >>> I think you've made a wrong judgment there. >>> Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. >>> >>> Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why >>> many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for >>> the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > Ed Try the journal that published this: http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 07:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44a71eba-046e-4c08-9285-d201ad818475@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418391 |
Ed Why do you feel qualified to publish a paper when you have "NO SCHOOLING OR BOOK LEARNING IN THE PHYSICS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM" ???? That is what mass is... ElectroMagnetism by way of E=mc^2 Mass which warps space time and causes time Dilation n stuff. That is like saying you can be the fastest runner when you have never trained a day in your life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 07:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <232b89d9-7bc8-4fec-9beb-d4045b5bb8cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418392 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:26:47 AM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Ed > Why do you feel qualified to publish a paper when you have "NO SCHOOLING OR BOOK LEARNING IN THE PHYSICS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM" ???? > > That is what mass is... ElectroMagnetism by way of E=mc^2 > > Mass which warps space time and causes time Dilation n stuff. > > That is like saying you can be the fastest runner when you have never trained a day in your life. So, you're saying that, in science today, credentials are more important that facts and evidence? THAT'S ALSO WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! And you seem to believe the fastest runner is the one who trained the most, not the one who runs fastest. That is HILARIOUS! I find the way mathematicians think to be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING - idiotic, but fascinating. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc7add4b-dbdd-4bc6-97e2-727e74b7ae29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418396 |
Ed Gibbered So, you're saying that, in science today, credentials are more important that facts and evidence? THAT'S ALSO WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! You're having a Brain fart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Et2dnXdNiduLnJPEnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #418396 |
>"Ed Lake" wrote in message >news:232b89d9-7bc8-4fec-9beb-d4045b5bb8cc@googlegroups.com... >On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:26:47 AM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) >Fuller wrote: >> Ed >> Why do you feel qualified to publish a paper when you have "NO SCHOOLING >> OR BOOK LEARNING IN THE PHYSICS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM" ???? > >> That is what mass is... ElectroMagnetism by way of E=mc^2 > >> Mass which warps space time and causes time Dilation n stuff. > >> That is like saying you can be the fastest runner when you have never >> trained a day in your life. >So, you're saying that, in science today, credentials are more important >that facts and evidence? THAT'S ALSO WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! In principle, anyone can gain the required knowledge independent of doing formal course at formal universities, in practice, it rarely happens. Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on physics. One key practical aspect of this, is that you cannot demonstrate that that you understand the existing theories. You can't do that because you don't have the math background. That's reality. A key part of why David Bohm got credibility on Bohmian Mechanics, imo, was that he first wrote a standard, formal text book on QM. It was obvious from the book, that he actually understood the subject matter and all the details in depth. This gave him credibility. Until you gain a deep understanding of differential geometry and Hilbert spaces, just for starters, you have no hope. That's reality. To get a new approach accepted in physics, you need to first prove that you are not a quack to the establishment, not that the establishment needs to prove that the new approach is not the result of a quack. That's reality. Its unfortunate in that I agree that many of the establishment have the math, but don't understand that the math is not physics, that is, physical reality. In fact, some are as daft to deny physical reality exists at all. I say to anyone that makes a claim, pop over to my house so that I can give you a firm kick in the balls. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5db8a640-73ae-4631-901b-3adb03983b4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418425 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:00:12 PM UTC-5, Kevin Aylward wrote: > >"Ed Lake" wrote in message > >news:232b89d9-7bc8-4fec-9beb-d4045b5bb8cc@googlegroups.com... > > >On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:26:47 AM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) > >Fuller wrote: > >> Ed > >> Why do you feel qualified to publish a paper when you have "NO SCHOOLING > >> OR BOOK LEARNING IN THE PHYSICS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM" ???? > > > >> That is what mass is... ElectroMagnetism by way of E=mc^2 > > > >> Mass which warps space time and causes time Dilation n stuff. > > > >> That is like saying you can be the fastest runner when you have never > >> trained a day in your life. > > >So, you're saying that, in science today, credentials are more important > >that facts and evidence? THAT'S ALSO WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! > > In principle, anyone can gain the required knowledge independent of doing > formal course at formal universities, in practice, it rarely happens. > > Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > physics. One key practical aspect of this, is that you cannot demonstrate > that that you understand the existing theories. You can't do that because > you don't have the math background. That's reality. > > A key part of why David Bohm got credibility on Bohmian Mechanics, imo, was > that he first wrote a standard, formal text book on QM. It was obvious from > the book, that he actually understood the subject matter and all the details > in depth. This gave him credibility. Until you gain a deep understanding of > differential geometry and Hilbert spaces, just for starters, you have no > hope. That's reality. > > To get a new approach accepted in physics, you need to first prove that you > are not a quack to the establishment, not that the establishment needs to > prove that the new approach is not the result of a quack. That's reality. > > Its unfortunate in that I agree that many of the establishment have the > math, but don't understand that the math is not physics, that is, physical > reality. In fact, some are as daft to deny physical reality exists at all. I > say to anyone that makes a claim, pop over to my house so that I can give > you a firm kick in the balls. > > -- Kevin Aylward > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html Kevin wrote: "Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on physics. One key practical aspect of this, is that you cannot demonstrate that that you understand the existing theories. You can't do that because you don't have the math background. That's reality." That is reality as you see it. I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow meter that people claimed was "impossible." I had absolutely NO experience or training in hydraulics. I just had to take over my brother's company to keep it running while his family looked for a buyer. I designed and built the meter, patented it, and sold hundreds of them within 6 months. It is still an item being sold by that company. The problem was that people tended to look at things in a "traditional" way. I knew nothing about the "traditions," so I was free to just look at things logically and scientifically. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oetjf6$1kka$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418429 |
Ed Lake, inventeur du dimanche, wrote: > I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow meter > that people claimed was "impossible." I had absolutely NO > experience or training in hydraulics. You may say the truth (even if, personally, I doubt it). I know people who learnt robotics by themselves and were very good at that. I have a huge doubt concerning you in general, and no doubt concerning you and physics: you're off. By the way, I've only spent 30 years studying, reading, confronting stuff in physics and math. You've spent ten months, you should know better, shouldn't you? > The problem was that people tended to look at things in a > "traditional" way. I knew nothing about the "traditions," This is a sophistry. Moreover your mistake concerning SR is very, very, very traditional amongst cranks. Nothing original in your articles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a22ec0f2-bad8-44e5-8343-3725cbc12a12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418926 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:30:50 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Ed Lake, inventeur du dimanche, wrote: > > The problem was that people tended to look at things in a > > "traditional" way. I knew nothing about the "traditions," > > This is a sophistry. Yes, it's been one of the canonical crank lines around here since this group's inception (about 1995). "I know nothing, therefore I'm not stuck in traditional thinking" etc. It's all garbage. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YtqdnaXQ_8yGppLEnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #418425 |
On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: > Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > physics. Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he would recognize his own errors.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03eddd99-edad-4f61-a36c-888cea099e40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418523 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on
> > physics.
>
> Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who
> understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he
> would recognize his own errors.)
>
> Tom Roberts
In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. He said the dispute with mathematicians has been going on for a hundred years. He also pointed me to a web page where scientists (including Nobel Prize winners) are organizing against the policies that prevent publication of ideas that conflict with established dogma. http://www.archivefreedom.org/
I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying.
And, of course, Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" agrees with what I've been saying.
Now that I have finished writing the papers, I can focus my time on finding the right place to publish, and I can look for support.
My paper on Time Dilation was about to be published when I found that it would cost me $508 to "offset printing costs." It appears that it is "common" in the scientific journal business, but I failed to notice the single sentence near the bottom of one of their web pages which mentioned the printing cost. So, I withdrew my paper. They were NOT an "open access" journal. The #2 ranked "Reviews of Modern Physics" charges $2,900 to print an article. ("Nature" is ranked #6. They don't charge, but they have a 3,000 word maximum.) I just do not want to argue with people who would claim that the only reason the journal published my article is because I paid them.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oeni3q$1094$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418525 |
Ed Lake, unseferable idiot, wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: >>> Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on >>> physics. >> >> Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who >> understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he >> would recognize his own errors.) >> >> Tom Roberts > > In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). Keep Einstein free of your crap, Mr Lake. Please > The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate > paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. So you've found another kook. So what? > I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, > which fully agrees with what I've been saying. No. > And, of course, Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" > agrees with what I've been saying. No. > Now that I have finished writing the papers, > I can focus my time on finding the right place to publish, and I can look for support. You do have a toilet bowl home, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee55a789-c28c-4f5c-8256-b2c37f4f6b17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418526 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:30:55 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: > Ed Lake, unseferable idiot, wrote: > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: > >>> Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > >>> physics. > >> > >> Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who > >> understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he > >> would recognize his own errors.) > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). > > Keep Einstein free of your crap, Mr Lake. Please > > > The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate > > paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. > > So you've found another kook. So what? > > > > I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, > > which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > No. Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: -------------- If a bullet is fired straight ahead from the front of a moving jet plane, the ground speed of the bullet is faster than if it were fired from a gun held by someone on the ground. The ground speed of the bullet fired from the plane is obtained by adding the speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet. In the case of light, however, the velocity of a beam is not affected by the speed of the object that sends out the beam. This was strongly indicated by experiments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and has since been amply confirmed, especially by recent tests on the decay of neutral pi mesons. One famous test was made by Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the rotating sun. One edge of our sun is always moving toward us, the other edge always moving away. It was found that light from both edges travels to the earth with the same velocity. Similar tests had been made decades earlier with light from revolving double stars. Regardless of the motion of its source, the speed of light through empty space is always the same: about 299,800 kilometers (186,300 miles) per second. Do you see how this fact provides a means by which a scientist (we will call him the observer) could calculate his own absolute motion? If light travels through a fixed, stationary ether with a certain speed, c, and if this velocity is independent of the velocity of its source, then the speed of light can be used as a kind of yardstick for measuring the observer's absolute motion. An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam. These variations would indicate his true, absolute motion through the ether. ----------------- That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage again: "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oenla6$1atn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418532 |
Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:01 schreef Ed Lake: [snip] > Do you see how this fact provides a means by which a scientist (we > will call him the observer) could calculate his own absolute motion? > If light travels through a fixed, stationary ether with a certain > speed, c, and if this velocity is independent of the velocity of its > source, then the speed of light can be used as a kind of yardstick > for measuring the observer's absolute motion. An observer moving in > the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing > him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam of > light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater > than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of > light should vary, depending on the observer's motion relative to the > beam. These variations would indicate his true, absolute motion > through the ether. ----------------- > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key > passage again: > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should > find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer > moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him > with a velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the > velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on the observer's > motion relative to the beam." And then read on. There's more, idiot. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeo41o$6cd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418532 |
On 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:30:55 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: >> Ed Lake, unseferable idiot, wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: >>>>> Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on >>>>> physics. >>>> >>>> Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who >>>> understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he >>>> would recognize his own errors.) >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). >> >> Keep Einstein free of your crap, Mr Lake. Please >> >>> The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate >>> paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. >> >> So you've found another kook. So what? >> >> >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, >>> which fully agrees with what I've been saying. >> >> No. > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > -------------- > If a bullet is fired straight ahead from the front of a moving jet plane, > the ground speed of the bullet is faster than if it were fired from a gun > held by someone on the ground. The ground speed of the bullet fired from the > plane is obtained by adding the speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet. > In the case of light, however, the velocity of a beam is not affected by the speed > of the object that sends out the beam. This was strongly indicated by experiments > in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and has since been amply > confirmed, especially by recent tests on the decay of neutral pi mesons. One famous > test was made by Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the > rotating sun. One edge of our > sun is always moving toward us, the other edge always moving away. It was found that l > ight from both edges travels to the earth with the same velocity. Similar tests had been > made decades earlier with light from revolving double stars. Regardless of the motion of > its source, the speed of light through empty space is always the same: about 299,800 kilometers (186,300 miles) per second. > > Do you see how this fact provides a means by which a scientist (we will call him the observer) > could calculate his own absolute motion? If light travels through a fixed, stationary ether with a certain > speed, c, and if this velocity is independent of the velocity of its source, then the speed of light can > be used as a kind of yardstick for measuring the observer's absolute motion. An observer moving in > the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an > observer moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater > > than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on > the observer's motion relative to the beam. These variations would indicate his true, absolute motion through the ether. > ----------------- > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage again: > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing him with a > speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him with a > velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending > on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > Ed > Ed, for Pete's sake, do you not understand that what is being said here is that IF this were true (that the speed of light varied with observer) then we would be able to see it in experiment, and since we do NOT see it in experiment, then this premise is DISPROVEN???? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NpWdnQ-hOteTCJLEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #418532 |
On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > [...] > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > again: > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with respect to it? The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth relative to the ether. There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about everything you say is flat-out WRONG. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afd46807-aab6-4b88-b048-580591fce72e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418621 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin > >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > [...] > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > > again: > > > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN > ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how > > ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a > substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- > how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with > respect to it? > > The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes > BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled > "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would > would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed > the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth > relative to the ether. > > There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the > SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... > > When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you > possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of > physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about > everything you say is flat-out WRONG. > > Tom Roberts Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong. My papers LIST EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT which show that what I and Einstein wrote regarding "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and what you argue is the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT PROVES TO BE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. The current version of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is version #4 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234 The current version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate is version #3 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f697f8f6-fd8c-40c0-ac2d-0de708f9aceb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418699 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:17:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin > > >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > > > No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > > [...] > > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > > > again: > > > > > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > > > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > > > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > > > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > > > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > > > YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN > > ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how > > > > ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a > > substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- > > how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with > > respect to it? > > > > The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes > > BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled > > "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would > > would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed > > the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth > > relative to the ether. > > > > There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the > > SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... > > > > When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you > > possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of > > physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about > > everything you say is flat-out WRONG. > > > > Tom Roberts > > Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong. > > My papers LIST EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT which show that what I and Einstein wrote regarding "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and what you argue is the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT PROVES TO BE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. > > The current version of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is version #4 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234 > > The current version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate is version #3 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 > > Ed Too bad that there is no treatment for you, there is no treatment for born imbeciles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1bd922a-28d6-4c2b-b11e-793a6e5ec559@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418699 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:17:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin > > >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > > > No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > > [...] > > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > > > again: > > > > > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > > > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > > > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > > > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > > > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > > > YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN > > ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how > > > > ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a > > substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- > > how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with > > respect to it? > > > > The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes > > BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled > > "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would > > would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed > > the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth > > relative to the ether. > > > > There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the > > SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... > > > > When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you > > possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of > > physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about > > everything you say is flat-out WRONG. > > > > Tom Roberts > > Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong. You forget one ingredient which is in fact at the root of the problem: you have to satisfy certain prerequisites(*) to get the ticket to play (let alone discuss anything). That's the reason no expert will want to even talk to you, it's a waste of everybody's time. (*)I.e., you have to know this stuff first. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web