Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 276 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:02 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:14 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:16 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:38 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 21:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 19:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:56 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:32 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 10:46 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 10:38 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Bilového Hlumu <zbuuz@nwtwzwz.lb> - 2017-06-10 18:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:42 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 21:28 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:06 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 06:25 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 06:34 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 16:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 17:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:44 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 08:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 16:18 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 01:58 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 07:46 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-25 01:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 00:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 14:37 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:12 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 06:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 01:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 15:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 00:22 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 03:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:00 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 22:56 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-11 04:42 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 16:34 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 12:57 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 13:03 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:41 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 15:30 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:38 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 10:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:24 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 11:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 03:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:50 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:20 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:48 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 11:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 16:00 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 16:08 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-15 17:57 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 19:14 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 02:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 02:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 23:18 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 17:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-16 21:06 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:41 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 22:46 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-12 11:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:51 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 15:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:12 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 11:32 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 19:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 13:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:13 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:52 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-14 15:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 09:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 16:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-16 15:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:33 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-06-09 08:28 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:50 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 17:23 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 11:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:49 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-10 21:13 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 13:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-11 21:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 18:53 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-12 21:51 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-14 21:57 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-14 22:30 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:31 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 00:04 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:07 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-16 04:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-16 09:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-27 19:43 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-28 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-28 03:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-28 15:54 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-29 09:43 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-29 12:29 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-01 09:47 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-02 11:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 03:33 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> - 2017-07-02 10:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-02 14:31 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:34 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 20:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 09:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 15:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 00:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 12:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 20:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 03:57 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:38 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-04 04:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 22:11 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 08:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 14:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-05 23:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 09:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 14:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 22:20 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-07 16:16 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 15:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-08 07:35 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 14:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 14:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 16:53 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-09 19:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 20:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> - 2017-07-13 13:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-11 23:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-15 11:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 03:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 13:55 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:42 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 14:49 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 05:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:33 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 20:18 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 09:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 16:25 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 21:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:45 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:05 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-20 08:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-20 22:22 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-21 14:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-21 15:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 08:53 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-22 14:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-12 17:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 17:56 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:46 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:41 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-15 21:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. khrapko_ri@hotmail.com - 2017-06-11 05:24 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 10:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2566960.e9J7NaK4W3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422292 |
wrote: > On 12/06/17 06:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Experiments are _not_ set up to verify, but to *falsify* theories. > > I would not agree with that. Since you do not know what you are talking about, your opinion on that is irrelevant. > I someone gets a novel idea, the first thing they want to do is test it. Testing still is different from verification. >> As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a >> theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever >> occurs. In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to >> be a very strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know >> whether they are on the right track with their theory or only wasting >> their precious time with it. > > correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has > been anywhere near the number from experimentalists. You are missing the point. > Maybe new concepts emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but > no matter where they come from or how credible they are, the immediate > goal will be to test them. That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ now. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 20:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohlq50$1fkc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422337 |
On 12/06/17 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> I someone gets a novel idea, the first thing they want to do is test it. > > Testing still is different from verification. > >>> As a result, your scenario that an experimental physicist has to ask a >>> theoretical physicist for permission to test their theory never ever >>> occurs. In fact, very likely you will have the theoretical physicist to >>> be a very strong supporter of the experiment so that they can know >>> whether they are on the right track with their theory or only wasting >>> their precious time with it. >> >> correct...but I doubt if the number of new ideas from theoreticians has >> been anywhere near the number from experimentalists. > > You are missing the point. > >> Maybe new concepts emerging from pure theory are the more sensational but >> no matter where they come from or how credible they are, the immediate >> goal will be to test them. > > That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ now. You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas either work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or measurements are needed. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 11:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohlsa2$1gn7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422346 |
HGW... wrote: > On 12/06/17 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ >> now. > > You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas either > work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or measurements are > needed. Please ignore the fool. For instance, he can't even make a car without lying, cheating and provoke environmental catastrophes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 03:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmkle$127p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422348 |
On 12/06/17 21:01, Selina Dieter wrote: > HGW... wrote: >> On 12/06/17 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad nauseam/ >>> now. >> >> You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas either >> work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or measurements are >> needed. > > Please ignore the fool. For instance, he can't even make a car without > lying, cheating and provoke environmental catastrophes. Idiot! You're obviously confusing technology with physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmlii$10mj$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422381 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 12/06/17 21:01, Selina Dieter wrote: >> HGW... wrote: >>> On 12/06/17 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> That is still _not_ verification. We have been over this /ad >>>> nauseam/ >>>> now. >>> >>> You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas >>> either work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or >>> measurements are >>> needed. >> >> Please ignore the fool. For instance, he can't even make a car without >> lying, cheating and provoke environmental catastrophes. > > Idiot! You're obviously confusing technology with physics. You fool yourself. You are not going to pretend, that a one unable to put a car together one place, would be capable in Physics? In which case you would be more uneducated than he is. Take care.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 04:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmnm5$17pa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422384 |
On 13/06/17 04:12, Selina Dieter wrote: > HGW, DSc. wrote: > >> On 12/06/17 21:01, Selina Dieter wrote: >>> >>> Please ignore the fool. For instance, he can't even make a car without >>> lying, cheating and provoke environmental catastrophes. >> >> Idiot! You're obviously confusing technology with physics. > > You fool yourself. You are not going to pretend, that a one unable to put > a car together one place, would be capable in Physics? In which case you > would be more uneducated than he is. Take care. Engineers have to painstakingly test and measure materials and working models in order to perfect their products. That is not what physicsist normally do. Physicists main role is to use past knowledge to create new concepts and theories. Having done that and applied relevant maths to check the possibilities, the next step is to test their ideas with experiment. The results will usually be complete success or absolute failure...but quite often it will be something in between that can be further investigated and remedied if possible. That may require lots of measurements that are carried out by technicians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmo2l$10mj$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422397 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > Physicists main role is to use past knowledge to create new concepts and > theories. Having done that and applied relevant maths to check the > possibilities, the next step is to test their ideas with experiment. The > results will usually be complete success or absolute failure...but quite > often it will be something in between that can be further investigated > and remedied if possible. That may require lots of measurements that are > carried out by technicians. I don't think those physicists are working that much. The most of the work is done by students. The students need work during projects and final theses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 05:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmpeg$1aoq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422402 |
On 13/06/17 04:55, Selina Dieter wrote: > HGW, DSc. wrote: > >> Physicists main role is to use past knowledge to create new concepts and >> theories. Having done that and applied relevant maths to check the >> possibilities, the next step is to test their ideas with experiment. The >> results will usually be complete success or absolute failure...but quite >> often it will be something in between that can be further investigated >> and remedied if possible. That may require lots of measurements that are >> carried out by technicians. > > I don't think those physicists are working that much. The most of the work > is done by students. The students need work during projects and final > theses. I think Physics is in the doldrums right now largely because technology has been catching up with previous discoveries....Research is being carried out in the name of technology rather than physics. However, the retrograde Einstein era should come to an end soon and physics might get off the ground again. I predict that investigations relating to the physical nature of fields and other dimensions will start a whole new chapter in the history of physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohmnl2$176d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422346 |
On 6/12/17 5:24 AM, HGW... wrote: > You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas either > work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or measurements are > needed. > > Ralph, what you want science to be about has absolutely nothing to do with what it really is about. You are not going to bend reality to conform to your fantasy of it. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 11:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohndmi$7ta$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422396 |
On 13/06/17 04:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/12/17 5:24 AM, HGW... wrote: >> You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas >> either work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or >> measurements are needed. >> >> > > Ralph, what you want science to be about has absolutely nothing to do > with what it really is about. You are not going to bend reality to > conform to your fantasy of it. Bodkin, do you know how most physicists spend their time? Many spend a lot of it reading the literature in the hope that will somehow encourage some of their own brain cells into actually producing something worthwhile. Others devote many hours to the building of all kinds of weird apparatus that might be used to test any novelty that randomly strays into their minds? Some drink coffee all day and talk to others who do the same, hoping to plagiarize some idea they accidentally divulge. You really don't have clue.... > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohp266$rqm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422431 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 13/06/17 04:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/12/17 5:24 AM, HGW... wrote: >>> You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas >>> either work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or >>> measurements are needed. >>> >>> >> >> Ralph, what you want science to be about has absolutely nothing to do >> with what it really is about. You are not going to bend reality to >> conform to your fantasy of it. >Bodkin, do you know how most physicists spend their time? Many spend a >lot of it reading the literature in the hope that will somehow encourage >some of their own brain cells into actually producing something >worthwhile. Others devote many hours to the building of all kinds of >weird apparatus that might be used to test any novelty that randomly >strays into their minds? Some drink coffee all day and talk to others >who do the same, hoping to plagiarize some idea they accidentally divulge. >You really don't have clue.... Hey Ralph, how do you know any of this? Do you even know any physicists? Have you ever even met one? Odd apparently reads lots of literature, while you won't even read any of the papers Paul A. has pointed you to, since you are too afraid to read anything that discredits DirtyBaThWater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohph03$1r63$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422431 |
On 6/12/17 8:04 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 13/06/17 04:48, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/12/17 5:24 AM, HGW... wrote: >>> You don't know what you are talking about. In physics, most ideas >>> either work or they don't work....no statistics, error bars or >>> measurements are needed. >>> >>> >> >> Ralph, what you want science to be about has absolutely nothing to do >> with what it really is about. You are not going to bend reality to >> conform to your fantasy of it. > > Bodkin, do you know how most physicists spend their time? Many spend a > lot of it reading the literature in the hope that will somehow encourage > some of their own brain cells into actually producing something > worthwhile. Others devote many hours to the building of all kinds of > weird apparatus that might be used to test any novelty that randomly > strays into their minds? Some drink coffee all day and talk to others > who do the same, hoping to plagiarize some idea they accidentally divulge. > You really don't have clue.... In this fantasy world where you live, what color is the sky? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 16:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uqudnTK81IDVyd3EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422269 |
On 6/11/17 6/11/17 2:57 PM, xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > Let's call your two groups physicists theorists and experimentalists or the > A team and the B team for short if we can. I'd like to know what would > happen [...] This is hopelessly naive, and contrary to what actually happens. The physics community operates as a collection of teams, with different teams in each (sub)field. Each team includes both theorists and experimenters. The experimentalists are always seeking new ways to test theories, and the theorists seek experiments that inform new theories. In my field of experimental particle physics, the prime motivations for the LHC and its experiments are to test the standard model and to look for phenomena that don't fit into its predictions and lead to new theories. So far, other than neutrino oscillations, no extensions to the standard model are needed to describe the totality of experimental data. There are, however, quite a few puzzles.... > Are you saying that science would jump at the chance to experiment and find > out if it could be falsified? We _DO_ design and perform experiments in an attempt to falsify current theories, as often as possible. For instance, the Mu2E experiment at Fermilab, of which I am a member, seeks to observe muon to electron conversion in the presence of an Al nucleus. We estimate our sensitivity will be about 10,000 times better than current limits. The standard model predicts the rate will be enormously smaller than our sensitivity, but most extensions to the standard model predict it should happen between the current limit and our predicted sensitivity. So we seek to either a) set a new upper limit, or b) observe some events. In either case that should inform us about which extensions to the standard model are viable, and which are not. Certainly in particle physics, and I'm pretty sure also in most other fields of physics, that is typical of how science is pursued. Your fantasy of a "war" between theorists and experimenters is just plain wrong. There is a friendly rivalry to be sure, but both types are necessary, and know it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohpknm$1v21$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422483 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > In my field of experimental particle physics, the prime motivations for > the LHC and its experiments are to test the standard model and to look > for phenomena that don't fit into its predictions and lead to new > theories. I strongly believe it sticks much, much more deeper than that. It is something they don't want us to know. That big money are not given just as "to test the standard model". LOL. > So far, other than neutrino oscillations, no extensions to the > standard model are needed to describe the totality of experimental data. > There are, however, quite a few puzzles.... Hmm. Se above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 17:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2388085.mvXUDI8C0e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422485 |
Lolek Atoru wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> In my field of experimental particle physics, the prime motivations for >> the LHC and its experiments are to test the standard model and to look >> for phenomena that don't fit into its predictions and lead to new >> theories. > > I strongly believe it sticks much, much more deeper than that. It is > something they don't want us to know. That big money are not given just as > "to test the standard model". LOL. Nobody cares about the conspiracy theories of a clueless, paranoid, gibbering, ’nym-shifting Tensor troll. And no, that is _not_ a problem. *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohub7u$185i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422634 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Lolek Atoru wrote: > >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> In my field of experimental particle physics, the prime motivations >>> for the LHC and its experiments are to test the standard model and to >>> look for phenomena that don't fit into its predictions and lead to new >>> theories. >> >> I strongly believe it sticks much, much more deeper than that. It is >> something they don't want us to know. That big money are not given just >> as "to test the standard model". LOL. > > Nobody cares about the conspiracy theories of a clueless, > paranoid, gibbering, ’nym-shifting Tensor troll. And no, that is _not_ a > problem. *PLONK* Idiot, that's not a plonk. This is a *_P L O N K_*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohpm16$el$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422483 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >We _DO_ design and perform experiments in an attempt to falsify current >theories, as often as possible. >For instance, the Mu2E experiment at Fermilab, of which I am a member, seeks to >observe muon to electron conversion in the presence of an Al nucleus. We >estimate our sensitivity will be about 10,000 times better than current limits. >The standard model predicts the rate will be enormously smaller than our >sensitivity, but most extensions to the standard model predict it should happen >between the current limit and our predicted sensitivity. So we seek to either a) >set a new upper limit, or b) observe some events. In either case that should >inform us about which extensions to the standard model are viable, and which are >not. Interesting. So the theory you are testing is that the half-life of a muon is not fixed in stone but is affected by the presence of other things (Al nuclei)? Or are you studying some sort of Al + µ- --> e- + X reaction? Interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 19:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <F-KdnQOtJIxS4t3EnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422486 |
On 6/13/17 6/13/17 4:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: > >> We _DO_ design and perform experiments in an attempt to falsify current >> theories, as often as possible. > >> For instance, the Mu2E experiment at Fermilab, of which I am a member, seeks to >> observe muon to electron conversion in the presence of an Al nucleus. We >> estimate our sensitivity will be about 10,000 times better than current limits. >> The standard model predicts the rate will be enormously smaller than our >> sensitivity, but most extensions to the standard model predict it should happen >> between the current limit and our predicted sensitivity. So we seek to either a) >> set a new upper limit, or b) observe some events. In either case that should >> inform us about which extensions to the standard model are viable, and which are >> not. > > Interesting. So the theory you are testing is that the half-life of a muon is > not fixed in stone but is affected by the presence of other things (Al nuclei)? No. We are testing lepton conservation for charged leptons -- it is already known to be violated for uncharged leptons (neutrino oscillations). Normally muons decay like this, which preserves lepton number (i.e. the number of electrons+nu_e, and separately the number of muons+nu_mu): mu- => e- + anti_nu_e + nu_mu We are looking for events like this: mu- + Al => e- + Al (plus perhaps other stuff we don't see) [This is a muonic atom, in which the mu- replaces one of the electrons. The muon quickly cascades down to its ground state, in which it overlaps almost completely with the Al nucleus. That significantly reduces the half-life of the orbiting muon, compared to a free muon.] Without the nucleus this could not obey conservation of 4-momentum; the nucleus just provides mass that can absorb the required 4-momentum. Any other stuff is highly constrained by 4-momentum conservation, and probably cannot occur except for very low energy photons. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohq7ca$a5h$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422504 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >On 6/13/17 6/13/17 4:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> >>> We _DO_ design and perform experiments in an attempt to falsify current >>> theories, as often as possible. >> >>> For instance, the Mu2E experiment at Fermilab, of which I am a member, seeks to >>> observe muon to electron conversion in the presence of an Al nucleus. We >>> estimate our sensitivity will be about 10,000 times better than current limits. >>> The standard model predicts the rate will be enormously smaller than our >>> sensitivity, but most extensions to the standard model predict it should happen >>> between the current limit and our predicted sensitivity. So we seek to either a) >>> set a new upper limit, or b) observe some events. In either case that should >>> inform us about which extensions to the standard model are viable, and which are >>> not. >> >> Interesting. So the theory you are testing is that the half-life of a muon is >> not fixed in stone but is affected by the presence of other things (Al nuclei)? >No. We are testing lepton conservation for charged leptons -- it is already >known to be violated for uncharged leptons (neutrino oscillations). <snip> That is really cool. I find the idea of muonic atoms fascinating by themselves. Also hypernuclei, which have a lambda in the nucleus. I have one question regarding neutrino oscillation. I don't know offhand what the latest estimates of neutrino masses are, but it doesn't matter as long as they are different. Let's say we have an electron neutrino with a certain mass m_e flying along at nearly c. It oscillates into a mu neutrino with mass m_u. Let's say m_u is 5 times m_e. Doesn't this violate conservation of energy, conservation of momentum or both? There isn't any pair (m1,v1) and (m2,v2), m1 != m2, which has both the same energy and momentum before and after. How can this be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 02:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohq80m$t11$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422511 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: > >> On 6/13/17 6/13/17 4:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> We _DO_ design and perform experiments in an attempt to falsify current >>>> theories, as often as possible. >>> >>>> For instance, the Mu2E experiment at Fermilab, of which I am a member, seeks to >>>> observe muon to electron conversion in the presence of an Al nucleus. We >>>> estimate our sensitivity will be about 10,000 times better than current limits. >>>> The standard model predicts the rate will be enormously smaller than our >>>> sensitivity, but most extensions to the standard model predict it should happen >>>> between the current limit and our predicted sensitivity. So we seek to either a) >>>> set a new upper limit, or b) observe some events. In either case that should >>>> inform us about which extensions to the standard model are viable, and which are >>>> not. >>> >>> Interesting. So the theory you are testing is that the half-life of a muon is >>> not fixed in stone but is affected by the presence of other things (Al nuclei)? > >> No. We are testing lepton conservation for charged leptons -- it is already >> known to be violated for uncharged leptons (neutrino oscillations). > > <snip> > > That is really cool. I find the idea of muonic atoms fascinating by > themselves. Also hypernuclei, which have a lambda in the nucleus. > > I have one question regarding neutrino oscillation. I don't know offhand > what the latest estimates of neutrino masses are, but it doesn't matter > as long as they are different. Let's say we have an electron neutrino > with a certain mass m_e flying along at nearly c. It oscillates into a > mu neutrino with mass m_u. Let's say m_u is 5 times m_e. Doesn't this > violate conservation of energy, conservation of momentum or both? There > isn't any pair (m1,v1) and (m2,v2), m1 != m2, which has both the same > energy and momentum before and after. How can this be? > The flavor eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates. See the neutral kaon system. This is why the mass difference produces oscillations without violating conservation laws. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web