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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8580ad47-fc47-452b-8e56-d5e3bf33195f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422592 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30:12 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 15/06/17 06:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 14.06.2017 13.57, skrev HGW, DSc.: > >> On 13/06/17 05:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Den 12.06.2017 03.32, skrev HGW...: > >>>> ___________________________ > >>>> | | > >>>> |___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | > >>>> | | > >>>> |__________________________| > >>>> > >>>> | > >>>> \/ > >>>> F > >>>> > >>>> let the container fall towards a star, in a direction > >>>> perpendicular to the laser beam. > >>>> > >>>> Paul, the question was, "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of > >>>> the container?" > >>> > >>> The prediction of Newton is: > >>> > >>> If the length of the container is 2L and it is free falling > >>> towards a body with mass M, and the distance to the centre of > >>> the gravitating body is r, and the speed of the particle is v, > >>> then the particle will hit a point a distance y above the centreline, > >>> where y = (GM/r^2)(L^4/(r^2*v^2)) > >> > >>> Concrete example: > >>> The gravitating body is the Earth. > >>> L = 1km, r = 6.5E6 (100km above the ground) > >>> y = 3.5/v^2 metres > >>> > >>> v = 1 m/s y = 3.5 m > >>> v = 10 m/s y = 35 mm > >>> v = 100 m/s y = 350 um > >>> v = 1000 m/s y = 3.5 um (rifle projectile) > >>> v = 3E8 m/s y = 4E-17 m (light) > >> > >> Second order effects...Just assume the force lines are parallel,... > > > > But "the force lines" are not parallel. > > "let the container fall towards a star". > > > > Your question was: > > "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of the container?" > > > > The answer is not in the centre as you claimed, > > but a distance (GM/r^2)(L^4/(r^2*v^2)) above the centre. > > Yes Paul, you are very clever...the container is rigid so neither the > laser nor spot can move freely...and you think you have wriggled out > again... > You also might have inadvertently shown that both Newton and Einstein > predict the same bending of light by the sun.... > > > The maths: > > https://paulba.no/div/RalphsContainer.pdf > > ...now assume the force lines are parallel.,.,.and discuss the main subject. xxein: Check out Shapiro time delay. Along with Newton's light bending, interpretation has it that light also slows down. The combination of effects cause light to deflect doubly. My gravity theory also predicts this doubling effect independently (not from GR but as GR predicts). I'm just a dumb-ass who doesn't know GR well enough to suit some but who needs GR when it is the wrong model
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 10:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohskvc$phb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422601 |
On 15/06/17 09:19, xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30:12 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>>> Second order effects...Just assume the force lines are >>>> parallel,... >>> >>> But "the force lines" are not parallel. "let the container fall >>> towards a star". >>> >>> Your question was: "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of >>> the container?" >>> >>> The answer is not in the centre as you claimed, but a distance >>> (GM/r^2)(L^4/(r^2*v^2)) above the centre. >> >> Yes Paul, you are very clever...the container is rigid so neither >> the laser nor spot can move freely...and you think you have >> wriggled out again... You also might have inadvertently shown that >> both Newton and Einstein predict the same bending of light by the >> sun.... >> >>> The maths: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsContainer.pdf >> >> ...now assume the force lines are parallel.,.,.and discuss the main >> subject. > > xxein: Check out Shapiro time delay. Shapiro delay is caused by light's interaction with the solar wind and other light. Along with Newton's light bending, interpretation has it that light also slows down. No, it speeds up as it approaches the sun then slows on leaving it. The combination of effects cause light to deflect doubly. It has never been proved to happen like that. My gravity theory also predicts this doubling effect independently (not from GR but as GR predicts). I'm just a dumb-ass who doesn't know GR well enough to suit some but who needs GR when it is the wrong model > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7c4b8e0-6191-4f00-898a-1b2a0170f59c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422603 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:39:13 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote: > On 15/06/17 09:19, xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30:12 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > >>>> Second order effects...Just assume the force lines are > >>>> parallel,... > >>> > >>> But "the force lines" are not parallel. "let the container fall > >>> towards a star". > >>> > >>> Your question was: "where does the beam or pellet hit the wall of > >>> the container?" > >>> > >>> The answer is not in the centre as you claimed, but a distance > >>> (GM/r^2)(L^4/(r^2*v^2)) above the centre. > >> > >> Yes Paul, you are very clever...the container is rigid so neither > >> the laser nor spot can move freely...and you think you have > >> wriggled out again... You also might have inadvertently shown that > >> both Newton and Einstein predict the same bending of light by the > >> sun.... > >> > >>> The maths: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsContainer.pdf > >> > >> ...now assume the force lines are parallel.,.,.and discuss the main > >> subject. > > > > xxein: Check out Shapiro time delay. > > Shapiro delay is caused by light's interaction with the solar wind and > other light. > > Along with Newton's light bending, interpretation has it that light also > slows down. > > No, it speeds up as it approaches the sun then slows on leaving it. > The combination of effects cause light to deflect doubly. > It has never been proved to happen like that. > > My gravity theory also predicts this doubling effect independently (not > from GR but as GR predicts). I'm just a dumb-ass who doesn't know GR > well enough to suit some but who needs GR when it is the wrong model > > > > > -- xxein: Hey idiot! When you mix up or ignore attributions you show how mixed up you are. No wonder you don't get anything right. No more for you. Bye-bye. | ||||/ \ / || --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58bd8c71-dac4-491c-a3fd-e24eec510874@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422604 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:01:14 PM UTC-4, xxei...@gmail.com wrote: Note to self: Congressional baseball game Thursday night. A message of solidarity and possible Presidential attendance. Armed guards, police and what-have-you up the yin-yang. Because... Conspiracy: Hire an idiot who can't hit the broadside of a barn to shoot-em up on Wednesday. Have electronically booby-trapped the field of play weeks before. Watch fireworks Thursday night. Never say never. But whoops! CNN just said Prez would be stupid to attend. Question: Will ego trump stupid? Stay tuned to CSPAN and find out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 00:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KqKdnQz3WqXViN_EnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422603 |
On 6/14/17 6/14/17 7:39 PM, HGW... wrote: > Shapiro delay is caused by light's interaction with the solar wind and > other light. Nope. The Shapiro delay is independent of wavelength, and is measured for light coming from stars more than 90 degrees from the sun. The angular dependence "just happens" to agree with the predictions of GR, and WILDLY disagrees with any sort of optical effect like you suppose. > [... further nonsense and fantasies] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 20:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohtm6a$506$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422611 |
On 15/06/17 15:04, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/14/17 6/14/17 7:39 PM, HGW... wrote: >> Shapiro delay is caused by light's interaction with the solar wind and >> other light. > > Nope. The Shapiro delay is independent of wavelength, and is measured > for light coming from stars more than 90 degrees from the sun. The > angular dependence "just happens" to agree with the predictions of GR, > and WILDLY disagrees with any sort of optical effect like you suppose. ....funny how experiments always agree with GR when they are carried out by people who already know the answers they want! >> [... further nonsense and fantasies] > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 15:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ohu17m$oav$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #422615 |
Den 15.06.2017 12.07, skrev HGW, DSc.: > > ....funny how experiments always agree with GR when they are carried out > by people who already know the answers they want! .. regardless of what answers they want. https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf Ralph, please repeat your claim that just about all experiments performed the last century are faked. :-D -- Paul, already laughing https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 04:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohuir6$1m3c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422624 |
On 15/06/17 23:14, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.06.2017 12.07, skrev HGW, DSc.: >> >> ....funny how experiments always agree with GR when they are carried >> out by people who already know the answers they want! > > ... regardless of what answers they want. > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf > > Henry, please repeat your claim that > just about all experiments performed > the last century are faked. :-D I wouldn't use the word 'faked' because that implies criminal intent rather than brain-deadening caused by acute religious indoctrination. One only has to read these typical experiments to realize that they invariably contain enough estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses to come up with just about any required answer. Why don't you list all the other experiments that have never been publicized because they certainly refute Einstein? Worst of all, there is still no attempt to perform experiments that might directly measure OWLS from a moving source, something that is now (just) possible. Quite obviously funding would be prohibited and anyone suggesting such a project would be declared insane and fired. Tragically, the whole of modern astronomy is based on the ancient and quite ridiculous idea that all light reaching planet Earth has traveled at the same speed, c, for its entire journey. It is now quite obvious from variable star research that this is not true and thousands of dedicated astronomers are wasting their time and a lot of money trying to make false sense out of the masses of Willusory data they have gathered. No wonder physics is a dying science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oi0357$d4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #422656 |
Den 15.06.2017 20.16, skrev HGW, DSc.: > On 15/06/17 23:14, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.06.2017 12.07, skrev HGW, DSc.: >>> >>> ....funny how experiments always agree with GR when they are carried >>> out by people who already know the answers they want! >> >> ... regardless of what answers they want. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf >> >> Henry, please repeat your claim that >> just about all experiments performed >> the last century are faked. :-D > > I wouldn't use the word 'faked' because that implies criminal intent > rather than brain-deadening caused by acute religious indoctrination. | Den 13.04.2017 00.58, skrev HGW... DSc.: | > Those clock experiments were faked. There is no change beyond normal | > random clock drift. When you know the answer you want, it is easy to | > get it. Just use clocks that drift in the right way.. > One only has to read these typical experiments to realize that they > invariably contain enough estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and > educated guesses to come up with just about any required answer. Ralph, I challenge you to explain in detail which estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained in the paper below, and how those estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer you claim is wrong. (I know it will never happen. You will flee.) :-D https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, M is the mass of the Sun, r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation above and gamma can be determined. The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 This means that the measured angles are very close to the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", quite the contrary. The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is 300 times the error bar too small. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 08:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oi1mpf$cnb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422697 |
On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.06.2017 20.16, skrev HGW, DSc.: >> On 15/06/17 23:14, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.06.2017 12.07, skrev HGW, DSc.: >>>> >>>> ....funny how experiments always agree with GR when they are carried >>>> out by people who already know the answers they want! >>> >>> ... regardless of what answers they want. >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf >>> >>> Henry, please repeat your claim that >>> just about all experiments performed >>> the last century are faked. :-D >> >> I wouldn't use the word 'faked' because that implies criminal intent >> rather than brain-deadening caused by acute religious indoctrination. > > | Den 13.04.2017 00.58, skrev HGW... DSc.: > | > Those clock experiments were faked. There is no change beyond normal > | > random clock drift. When you know the answer you want, it is easy to > | > get it. Just use clocks that drift in the right way.. > > >> One only has to read these typical experiments to realize that they >> invariably contain enough estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and >> educated guesses to come up with just about any required answer. > > Henry, I challenge you to explain in detail which estimates, > misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained > in the paper below, and how those estimates, misinterpretations, > vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer > you claim is wrong. > > (I know it will never happen. You will flee.) :-D > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from > a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: > > deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) That is the GR prediction. So what? > where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, > M is the mass of the Sun, > r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, > X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. > > gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: > If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, > if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. > > Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with > extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made > by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find > how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. The deflection is negligible. > These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation > above and gamma can be determined. > > The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 A figure produced BY desperate dingleberries who know the answer they want FOR deperate dingleberries who know the answer they want to see and published in dingleberry owned journals who will do anything to support the Grand Conspiracy. > This means that the measured angles are very close to > the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. > > These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", > quite the contrary. > The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and > the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is > 300 times the error bar too small. Paul, only an idiot would believe that. The deflections are all so negligibly small that any minute error in Hipparcos reference angles will produce whatever answer you want. What does Hipparcos use as a reference anyway? This kind of paper is typical of the way the Grand Conspirators operate. It pretends to associate the name Einstein with any physical advance of importance, eg GPS, LIGO. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 11:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi3m9m$tv4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422756 |
On 6/16/17 5:40 PM, HGW... wrote: >> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with >> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made >> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find >> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. > > The deflection is negligible. Nothing is negligible if you can measure it to three parts in a thousand. > >> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation >> above and gamma can be determined. >> >> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 That's a measurement with precision three parts in a thousand. > > A figure produced BY desperate dingleberries who know the answer they > want FOR deperate dingleberries who know the answer they want to see and > published in dingleberry owned journals who will do anything to support > the Grand Conspiracy. If you are claiming that the precision of three parts in a thousand is wrong, then you can explain why you think so. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi62pq$i20$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422756 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.06.2017 20.16, skrev HGW, DSc.: >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> >> The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from >> a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: >> >> deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) >That is the GR prediction. So what? No, Ralph, obviously you cannot understand what that equation means because you stopped reading here. You had to read the rest of the sentence. >> where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, >> M is the mass of the Sun, >> r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, >> X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. >> >> gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: >> If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, >> if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. See, Ralph? That equation is the GR prediction *only if gamma=1*. If gamma=0, that equation is the Newtonian prediction. >> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with >> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made >> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find >> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. >The deflection is negligible. No, Ralph, they gave an error of 0.003, which is comparatively quite small. Besides, if the deflection was negligible, the zero (measured) deflections would cause the (1+gamma) term to be measured as zero (no deflection) and therefore, gamma would be determined to be -1. Gamma = -1 would match neither the Newtonian nor GR prediction. >> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation >> above and gamma can be determined. >> >> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 >A figure produced BY desperate dingleberries who know the answer they >want FOR deperate dingleberries who know the answer they want to see and >published in dingleberry owned journals who will do anything to support >the Grand Conspiracy. You are projecting, Ralph. You are desperate in trying to salvage your DirtyBaThWater beliefs because you know the answer you want to see, but actual science does not come up with them. However, you project your desperation onto the scientists who actually did the work. This is common in the mentally ill. >> This means that the measured angles are very close to >> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. >> >> These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", >> quite the contrary. >> The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and >> the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is >> 300 times the error bar too small. >Paul, only an idiot would believe that. The deflections are all so >negligibly small that any minute error in Hipparcos reference angles >will produce whatever answer you want. No, Ralph, "negligibly small" deflections (measured as ~zero) would come up with gamma = -1 (gamma+1=0), which would match neither GR nor Newton. This did not happen, the error bar of 0.003 is quite good. >This kind of paper is typical of the way the Grand Conspirators operate. >It pretends to associate the name Einstein with any physical advance of >importance, eg GPS, LIGO. You are projecting again, inventing conspiracy theories to invent reasons why scientists believe in actual science instead of your DirtyBaThWater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 14:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oigbkh$bu6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #422756 |
Den 17.06.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: > On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Ralph, I challenge you to explain in detail which estimates, >> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >> in the paper below, and how those estimates, misinterpretations, >> vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer >> you claim is wrong. >> >> (I know it will never happen. You will flee.) :-D >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> >> The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from >> a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: >> >> deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) > > That is the GR prediction. So what? > >> where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, >> M is the mass of the Sun, >> r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, >> X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. >> >> gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: >> If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, >> if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. >> >> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with >> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made >> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find >> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. > > The deflection is negligible. ..and thus demonstrating that you haven't read the paper. You are fleeing the challenge! > >> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation >> above and gamma can be determined. >> >> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 > > A figure produced BY desperate dingleberries who know the answer they > want FOR deperate dingleberries who know the answer they want to see and > published in dingleberry owned journals who will do anything to support > the Grand Conspiracy. > >> This means that the measured angles are very close to >> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. >> >> These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", >> quite the contrary. >> The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and >> the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is >> 300 times the error bar too small. > > Paul, only an idiot would believe that. The deflections are all so > negligibly small that any minute error in Hipparcos reference angles > will produce whatever answer you want. > What does Hipparcos use as a reference anyway? > This kind of paper is typical of the way the Grand Conspirators operate. > It pretends to associate the name Einstein with any physical advance of > importance, eg GPS, LIGO. > A fact: Hipparcos measured the position of thousands of stars during several years. It made many millions (billions?) of measurements, and these were made automatically without the possibility of faking the raw data to make them show what you want. The raw data are accessible to anybody, and no scientist would commit professional suicide by using faked data. The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained in the paper: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf and how those estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer you claim is wrong. To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to the paper. Are you going to meet the challenge? (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94b8c25f-b2b9-4b0e-b0f1-1dbbca86f057@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423244 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 czerwca 2017 14:02:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > >> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with > >> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made > >> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find > >> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. > > > > The deflection is negligible. > > ..and thus demonstrating that you haven't read the paper. Too bad, however, that according to your Shit the light trajectories (both in space and in spacetime) are straight/ geodesic lines with no deflection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oiu5g5$7ji$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423244 |
Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > Den 17.06.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: >> On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Ralph, I challenge you to explain in detail which estimates, >>> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >>> in the paper below, and how those estimates, misinterpretations, >>> vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer >>> you claim is wrong. >>> >>> (I know it will never happen. You will flee.) :-D >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >>> >>> The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from >>> a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is: >>> >>> deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X)) >> >> That is the GR prediction. So what? >> >>> where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, >>> M is the mass of the Sun, >>> r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite, >>> X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star. >>> >>> gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning: >>> If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction, >>> if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction. >>> >>> Hipparcos has measured the positions of thousands of stars with >>> extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made >>> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find >>> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun. >> >> The deflection is negligible. > > ..and thus demonstrating that you haven't read the paper. > > You are fleeing the challenge! > >> >>> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation >>> above and gamma can be determined. >>> >>> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003 >> >> A figure produced BY desperate dingleberries who know the answer they >> want FOR deperate dingleberries who know the answer they want to see >> and published in dingleberry owned journals who will do anything to >> support the Grand Conspiracy. >> >>> This means that the measured angles are very close to >>> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction. >>> >>> These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy", >>> quite the contrary. >>> The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and >>> the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is >>> 300 times the error bar too small. >> >> Paul, only an idiot would believe that. The deflections are all so >> negligibly small that any minute error in Hipparcos reference angles >> will produce whatever answer you want. >> What does Hipparcos use as a reference anyway? >> This kind of paper is typical of the way the Grand Conspirators >> operate. It pretends to associate the name Einstein with any physical >> advance of importance, eg GPS, LIGO. >> > > A fact: > Hipparcos measured the position of thousands of stars during > several years. It made many millions (billions?) of measurements, > and these were made automatically without the possibility of > faking the raw data to make them show what you want. > The raw data are accessible to anybody, and no scientist would > commit professional suicide by using faked data. > > The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, > misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained > in the paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > and how those estimates, misinterpretations, > vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer > you claim is wrong. > > To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to > the paper. > > Are you going to meet the challenge? > > (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) > QED -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-28 09:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oiuo8s$123g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423551 |
On 28/06/17 03:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >> The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, >> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >> in the paper: >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> and how those estimates, misinterpretations, >> vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer >> you claim is wrong. >> >> To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to >> the paper. >> >> Are you going to meet the challenge? >> >> (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) >> > > QED The paper is garbage... The word 'however' is used throughout, after just about every vague estimate or guess. It is typical of the way in which the dingleberry machine has managed to fabricate masses of false support for their favorite god. The only part that might be worth noting is the paragraph which virtually admits that all the experiments involving solar eclipses did NOT support GR. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-28 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiv8t6$cal$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423561 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 28/06/17 03:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >>> To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to >>> the paper. >>> >>> Are you going to meet the challenge? >>> >>> (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) >>> >> >> QED >The paper is garbage... The word 'however' is used throughout, after >just about every vague estimate or guess. Ralph, 'however' used three times is 'used throughout' ? That's the best you can do to try to discredit that paper, Ralph? Ralph, each time 'however' was used was commenting on error sources, and knowing the possible errors is *good* science, Ralph Rabbidge. > It is typical of the way in >which the dingleberry machine has managed to fabricate masses of false >support for their favorite god. No scientific criticism, Ralph, just unrelated comments on how the deluded followers of Herbert Dingle, such as yourself, support your favorite god, Ralph? Ralph Rabbidge, who *is* the god of your DirtyBaThWater religion, Ralph? We all know who the Satan of your religion is, Ralph, but is Herbert Dingle your god? Ralph, is that why you call yourself a dingleberry? >The only part that might be worth noting is the paragraph which >virtually admits that all the experiments involving solar eclipses did >NOT support GR. Ralph, what about all the part that does support GR, Ralph? Determining the difference between gamma=0 or 1 with an error bar of 0.003 is pretty damn good, Mr. Rabbidge!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-28 15:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj0ceh$3e8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423561 |
Den 28.06.2017 01.03, skrev HGW...: > On 28/06/17 03:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >>> The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, >>> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >>> in the paper: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >>> and how those estimates, misinterpretations, >>> vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer >>> you claim is wrong. >>> >>> To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to >>> the paper. >>> >>> Are you going to meet the challenge? >>> >>> (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) >>> >> >> QED > > The paper is garbage... The word 'however' is used throughout, after > just about every vague estimate or guess. Since "However" is used three times in the paper, that means that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge finds three vague estimates or guesses in the paper: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf Let's look at them: However #1: << After a careful calibration of the instrument parameters, each abscissa on a reference great-circle (RGC) had a typical precision of 3 mas for a star of 8-9 mag. Each consortium has generated for the full mission about 3.5 million abscissae. Thus, ideally, if the reduction is without systematic errors and by neglecting all kind of correlations, an unknown angular parameter in the abscissa modelling common to all stars could be determined with a precision as good as: 3/sqrt(3.5E6) = 0.0016 mas Assuming that the deflection for all stars is of the form: 4 X (1+gamma)/2 mas gamma could be known to better than 0.001. Unfortunately, the correlation between the global parallax zero point and gamma is very large (-0.92) and increases the expected formal error of by an estimated factor of about 2.5, so that it becomes 0.003. However, such a result would rank among the best determinations obtained by various means. >> Challenger to Ralph: Please specify what "vague estimate or guess" you found before "however #1". However #2: << A global evaluation of the PPN parameters by Hellings (1984) has allowed the use of a large data sample of solar system observations: meridian transits of planets and the Moon, lunar laser ranging measurements, radar range measurements on Mercury, Venus and Mars. The dynamics of all these objects and the observations were modelled in the PPN formalism and the best fit yielded: (1 + gamma)/2 = 0.9994 +/- 0.0008 However the great heterogeneity of the observational material makes the assessment of the true uncertainty difficult. >> This isn't about the Hipparcos measurements at all. However #3: << The geometry of the light deflection and that of the parallactic effect are very similar, differing in direction and in their dependence in \chi , with \delta\Theta_2 = \pi \sin\chi for the parallactic effect and the expression of Equation 1 for the deflection. This difference proves essential in separating the two effects in the observation equations. However the separation is not perfect, despite the good coverage in elongation, and the two effects remain largely correlated. >> This is about the finer point in the geometry, and is in fact an explanation of why the precision is reduced by a factor of 2.5 as mentioned before 'however #1' So Ralph, the challenge is still to explain in detail which estimates, misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained in the paper: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > It is typical of the way in > which the dingleberry machine has managed to fabricate masses of false > support for their favorite god. > > The only part that might be worth noting is the paragraph which > virtually admits that all the experiments involving solar eclipses did > NOT support GR. There is no such paragraph. Quite the contrary, in fig.3 the result of the eclipse measurements made 1973 by "Texas Mauritanian Eclipse Team" is drawn. http://tinyurl.com/ybm5vlw5 http://tinyurl.com/y8goroaz gamma = (0.95 +/- 0.11) Poor precision, but not worthless. It falsifies Newton! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 09:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oj1eu8$1ev0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423582 |
On 28/06/17 23:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 28.06.2017 01.03, skrev HGW...: >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >>>> and how those estimates, misinterpretations, >>>> vagaries and educated guesses are used to come up with an answer >>>> you claim is wrong. >>>> >>>> To do so, you obviously have to read the paper and refer to >>>> the paper. >>>> >>>> Are you going to meet the challenge? >>>> >>>> (A rhetoric question. I know you are not.) >>>> >>> >>> QED >> >> The paper is garbage... The word 'however' is used throughout, after >> just about every vague estimate or guess. > > Since "However" is used three times in the paper, > that means that Henry George Wilson finds > three vague estimates or guesses in the paper: > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > Let's look at them: > However #1: > << > After a careful calibration of the instrument parameters, > each abscissa on a reference great-circle (RGC) had > a typical precision of 3 mas for a star of 8-9 mag. > Each consortium has generated for the full mission > about 3.5 million abscissae. Thus, ideally, if > the reduction is without systematic errors and by > neglecting all kind of correlations, an unknown > angular parameter in the abscissa modelling common > to all stars could be determined with a precision > as good as: 3/sqrt(3.5E6) = 0.0016 mas Note the word 'if'... > > Assuming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that the deflection for all stars is of > the form: 4 X (1+gamma)/2 mas gamma could be known > to better than 0.001. Unfortunately, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > the correlation > between the global parallax zero point and gamma is > very large (-0.92) and increases the expected formal > error of by an estimated factor of about 2.5, so that > it becomes 0.003. However, such a result would rank > among the best determinations obtained by various mean The others are even worse! > Challenger to Henry: > Please specify what "vague estimate or guess" > you found before "however #1". > > However #2:>> On 28/06/17 03:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >>>> The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, >>>> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >>>> in the paper: > << > A global evaluation of the PPN parameters by > Hellings (1984) has allowed the use of a large data > sample of solar system observations: meridian transits > of planets and the Moon, lunar laser ranging measurements, > radar range measurements on Mercury, Venus and Mars. > The dynamics of all these objects and the observations were > modelled in the PPN formalism and the best fit yielded: > (1 + gamma)/2 = 0.9994 +/- 0.0008 > However the great heterogeneity of the observational > material makes the assessment of the true uncertainty > difficult.>> On 28/06/17 03:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 22.06.2017 14.02, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >>>> The challenge was to explain in detail which estimates, >>>> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >>>> in the paper: > >> > This isn't about the Hipparcos measurements at all. WHAT IS IT DOING In THE PAPER THEN? > However #3: > << > > However the separation is not perfect, Sure isn't! > So Ralph, the challenge is still to explain in detail which estimates, > misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained > in the paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf Paul, Did you notice that the selected stars had a wide range of 'angular distances' from the sun? That is very important and offers a simple way to fake the results. If you knew anything about the deflection of starlight, you would know that most of it occurs when the light is in the vicinity of the sun. Quite likely, light coming from -45 deg might deviate about ten times more than that coming from +45 degrees. So it isn't hard to select the right angular distribution of stars that will exaggerate the answer by the desired factor of 2. You might have noticed that 'troublesome stars' were omitted from the analysis. Obviously they were the ones that caused trouble for Einstein's silly theory. >> It is typical of the way in which the dingleberry machine has managed >> to fabricate masses of false support for their favorite god. >> >> The only part that might be worth noting is the paragraph which >> virtually admits that all the experiments involving solar eclipses did >> NOT support GR. > > There is no such paragraph. That's what you would like to believe. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 12:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj2kq2$vcm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423588 |
Den 29.06.2017 01.43, skrev HGW...: > On 28/06/17 23:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 28.06.2017 01.03, skrev HGW...: >>> The paper is garbage... The word 'however' is used throughout, after >>> just about every vague estimate or guess. >> >> Since "However" is used three times in the paper, >> that means that Henry George Wilson finds >> three vague estimates or guesses in the paper: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> >> Let's look at them: >> However #1: >> << >> After a careful calibration of the instrument parameters, >> each abscissa on a reference great-circle (RGC) had >> a typical precision of 3 mas for a star of 8-9 mag. >> Each consortium has generated for the full mission >> about 3.5 million abscissae. Thus, ideally, if >> the reduction is without systematic errors and by >> neglecting all kind of correlations, an unknown >> angular parameter in the abscissa modelling common >> to all stars could be determined with a precision >> as good as: 3/sqrt(3.5E6) = 0.0016 mas > > Note the word 'if'... > >> >> Assuming > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > >> that the deflection for all stars is of >> the form: 4 X (1+gamma)/2 mas gamma could be known >> to better than 0.001. > > Unfortunately, > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >> the correlation >> between the global parallax zero point and gamma is >> very large (-0.92) and increases the expected formal >> error of by an estimated factor of about 2.5, so that >> it becomes 0.003. However, such a result would rank >> among the best determinations obtained by various means. >> >> > > > The others are even worse! Reading is hard, isn't it? :-D IF the circumstances had been ideal, the precision would be 0.0016 mas and the precision of gamma 0.001, but UNFORTUNATELY the circumstances are not ideal, so the precision of gamma is reduced to 0.003. >> Challenger to Henry: >> Please specify what "vague estimate or guess" >> you found before "however #1" Well Ralph? Were you unable to find any "vague estimate or guess" since you don't even try to point them out? >> >> However #2: >> << >> A global evaluation of the PPN parameters by >> Hellings (1984) has allowed the use of a large data >> sample of solar system observations: meridian transits >> of planets and the Moon, lunar laser ranging measurements, >> radar range measurements on Mercury, Venus and Mars. >> The dynamics of all these objects and the observations were >> modelled in the PPN formalism and the best fit yielded: >> (1 + gamma)/2 = 0.9994 +/- 0.0008 >> However the great heterogeneity of the observational >> material makes the assessment of the true uncertainty >> difficult. >> >> >> This isn't about the Hipparcos measurements at all. > > WHAT IS IT DOING In THE PAPER THEN? Because several different measurements of gravitational deflection are mentioned in the paper, and the author found that the analysis made by Hellings (1984) had a precision which, because of the nature of the data, was difficult to assess. >> However #3: >> << >> The geometry of the light deflection and that of >> the parallactic effect are very similar, differing >> in direction and in their dependence in \chi , with >> \delta\Theta_2 = \pi \sin\chi for the parallactic >> effect and the expression of Equation 1 for the >> deflection. This difference proves essential in >> separating the two effects in the observation equations. >> However the separation is not perfect, > > Sure isn't! > >> despite the good coverage in elongation, and >> the two effects remain largely correlated. >> >> >> This is about the finer point in the geometry, and is >> in fact an explanation of why the precision is reduced >> by a factor of 2.5 as mentioned before 'however #1' > >> So Ralph, the challenge is still to explain in detail which estimates, >> misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses is contained >> in the paper: >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > Paul, Did you notice that the selected stars had a wide range of > 'angular distances' from the sun? That is very important and offers a > simple way to fake the results. Can you elaborate on that, please? Which data are easy to fake, and why are they easy to fake because the stars had a wide range of angular distances from the sun? > If you knew anything about the deflection of starlight, you would know > that most of it occurs when the light is in the vicinity of the sun. > Quite likely, light coming from -45 deg might deviate about ten times > more than that coming from +45 degree. So it isn't hard to select the > right angular distribution of stars that will exaggerate the answer by > the desired factor of 2. The angular distribution was: (Sun at 0 degrees) degrees 40-49 3.8% 16568 stars 50-59 12.6% 54936 stars 60-69 10.6% 46216 stars 70-79 10.8% 47088 stars 80-89 9.8% 42728 stars 90-99 10.9% 47524 stars 100-109 9.8% 42728 stars 110-110 10.4% 45344 stars 120-129 11.3% 49268 stars 130-139 9.4% 40984 stars 140-145 0.6% 2616 stars 21.6 million measurements were made, which on average is about 50 measurements of each star. The predictions of the deflection by GR and Newton are: Angle from Sun GR Newton 45 degrees 9.83 mas 4.91 mas 90 degrees 4.07 mas 2.04 mas 135 degrees 1.69 mas 0.84 mas The precision of the measurements was ~= 0.004 mas The result of all the measurements was that gamma = (0.997+/-0.003) Can you please explain why this choice of angular distribution make it easy to "exaggerate the answer by the desired factor of 2"? > You might have noticed that 'troublesome stars' were omitted from the > analysis. Obviously they were the ones that caused trouble for > Einstein's silly theory. And which stars might that be? Stars closer to the Sun than 40 degrees were not used because the solar corona make the measurements less precise. (So Hipparcos probably didn't measure them) Stars further from the Sun than 140 degrees were not used because the deflection is so small that the precision is poorer. >>> It is typical of the way in which the dingleberry machine has managed >>> to fabricate masses of false support for their favorite god. >>> >>> The only part that might be worth noting is the paragraph which >>> virtually admits that all the experiments involving solar eclipses >>> did NOT support GR. >> >> There is no such paragraph. > > That's what you would like to believe. That's what we both know. >> Quite the contrary, in fig.3 the result of the eclipse >> measurements made 1973 by "Texas Mauritanian Eclipse Team" >> is drawn. >> http://tinyurl.com/ybm5vlw5 >> http://tinyurl.com/y8goroaz >> gamma = (0.95 ± 0.11) >> Poor precision, but not worthless. It falsifies Newton! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web