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 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-01 09:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oj6nuj$ke1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423595 |
On 29/06/17 20:29, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > 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...: >> >> 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) What nonsense! Do you think the corona disappears during an eclipse? Apparently Eddington and others must have.. You really are funny Paul. The plain fact is, the only reliable measurement would have come from stars less than <40 deg. ...and thhese would have obviouslty refuted GR. > 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! > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-01 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj8s33$a12$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423726 |
Den 01.07.2017 01.47, skrev HGW...: > On 29/06/17 20:29, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 29.06.2017 01.43, skrev HGW...: >>> On 28/06/17 23:54, Paul B. Andersen wrote >>>> 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? No? :-D >> >>> 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"? So you can't explain it? :-D >> >>> 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) > > What nonsense! Do you think the corona disappears during an eclipse? > Apparently Eddington and others must have.. > You really are funny Paul. The plain fact is, the only reliable > measurement would have come from stars less than <40 deg. ...and thhese > would have obviouslty refuted GR. Confused, Ralph? :-D >> Stars further from the Sun than 140 degrees were not used >> because the deflection is so small that the precision is poorer. Giving up, Ralph? So we can conclude that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge is unable to point out any misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses in this paper: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf But Ralph's down under upside down logic is indeed funny! :-D 21.6 million measurements of 460 thousand stars are done, and the stars are distributed from 40 degrees to 140 degrees from the Sun, and partly because the light from none of these stars have passed through the solar corona, the precision is vastly better (gamma = 0.997+/-0.003) than can be achieved with measurements of stars close to the Sun. And yet Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge says: "The plain fact (SIC) is, the only reliable measurement would have come from stars less than < 40 deg. ...and these would have obviously refuted GR." But measurements of stars less than 40 deg from the Sun did not refute GR even if the precision is 37 times poorer than the Hipparcos measurements: >>>> 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 | 2017-07-02 11:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oj9k10$12j6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423765 |
On 02/07/17 05:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 01.07.2017 01.47, skrev HGW...: > >>> >>>> 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"? > > So you can't explain it? :-D > >>> >>>> 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) >> >> What nonsense! Do you think the corona disappears during an eclipse? > >> Apparently Eddington and others must have.. >> You really are funny Paul. The plain fact is, the only reliable >> measurement would have come from stars less than <40 deg. ...and >> thhese would have obviouslty refuted GR. > > Confused, Henry? :-D How bloody far do you think the corona extends? >>> Stars further from the Sun than 140 degrees were not used >>> because the deflection is so small that the precision is poorer. > > Giving up, Henry? Even at 45 deg the deflections are too small to be accurately measured. > So we can conclude that Henry George Wilson is unable > to point out any misinterpretations, vagaries and educated > guesses in this paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > But Henry's down under upside down logic is indeed funny! :-D > 21.6 million measurements of 460 thousand stars are done, > and the stars are distributed from 40 degrees to 140 degrees > from the Sun, and partly because the light from none of these > stars have passed through the solar corona, the precision is > vastly better (gamma = 0.997+/-0.003) than can be achieved > with measurements of stars close to the Sun. I don't believe the experiment was actually performed at all. > And yet Henry George Wilson says: > "The plain fact (SIC) is, the only reliable measurement would > have come from stars less than < 40 deg. ...and these > would have obviously refuted GR." > > But measurements of stars less than 40 deg from the Sun > did not refute GR even if the precision is 37 times poorer > than the Hipparcos measurements: > >>>>> 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! Look Paul, this whole experiment is just another hilarious dingleberry joke. The Newtonian deflections are considerably smaller than your above figures and are impossible to measure accurately even with Hipparcos. it is typical of an experiment that can be easily manipulated to produce just about any desired answer. I'm quite sure that they would have found gamma to be 1 even if hte GR prediction was 10 times the claimed one. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-02 03:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oj9pif$p7e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423784 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 02/07/17 05:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 01.07.2017 01.47, skrev HGW...: >>>> Stars further from the Sun than 140 degrees were not used >>>> because the deflection is so small that the precision is poorer. >> >> Giving up, Ralph? >Even at 45 deg the deflections are too small to be accurately measured. No, Ralph, if that were the case, then they would have measured (gamma+1)=0, or gamma= -1, or no deflection, agreeing with neither Newton nor GR. And don't forget, Ralph. Just because you can't figure out how to measure such small deflections accurately doesn't mean that nobody else can, Ralph. >I don't believe the experiment was actually performed at all. The people who actually perform such experiments don't care what you believe, Ralph. >I'm quite sure that they would have found >gamma to be 1 So you agree with GR after all, Ralph? That's great!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-02 10:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojahff$5d0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423786 |
W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 10:52:05 UTC-4 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >>>>> Stars further from the Sun than 140 degrees were not used because >>>>> the deflection is so small that the precision is poorer. >>> >>> Giving up, Ralph? > >>Even at 45 deg the deflections are too small to be accurately measured. > > No, Ralph, if that were the case, then they would have measured > (gamma+1)=0, or gamma= -1, or no deflection, agreeing with neither > Newton nor GR. Nevermind this shit. Answer your own question, morony. Let me requote >>Morony, what gives your (-6/-2)! Hello world, the said morony is incapable to answer his own question! He is a capitalist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-02 14:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojap2o$boe$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423784 |
Den 02.07.2017 03.58, skrev HGW...: >>>On 29/06/17 20:29, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >>>> >>>> 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) > > Even at 45 deg the deflections are too small to be accurately measured. Is too! Is too! :-D > The Newtonian deflections are considerably smaller than your above > figures and are impossible to measure accurately even with Hipparcos. I challenge you to prove your claim by showing that the Newtonian predictions are considerably smaller than my above figures. (Don't bother, Ralph. Everybody, including you, will understand that my figures are correct.) Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge has convincingly demonstrated his inability to point out any misinterpretations, vagaries and educated guesses in this paper: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf I can but admire Ralph's ability to not believe what he knows is true: > I don't believe the experiment was actually performed at all. And with this giant stupidity we close the case. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 11:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojc6vh$iod$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423809 |
On 02/07/17 22:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.07.2017 03.58, skrev HGW...:
>>>> On 29/06/17 20:29, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
No magnetic field
Slow rotating stars
DC (reconnection) AC (waves)
>>>>> 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)
>>
>> Even at 45 deg the deflections are too small to be accurately measured.
> Is too! Is too! :-D
>
No magnetic field
Slow rotating stars
DC (reconnection) AC (waves)
So all the previous 'GR conformations' about the bending of light by the
sun are worthless.
Thank you Paul.
>> The Newtonian deflections are considerably smaller than your above
>> figures and are impossible to measure accurately even with Hipparcos.
>
> I challenge you to prove your claim by showing
> that the Newtonian predictions are considerably
> smaller than my above figures.
>
> (Don't bother, Henry. Everybody, including you,
> will understand that my figures are correct.)
>
No magnetic field
Slow rotating stars
DC (reconnection) AC (waves)
>
>
>> I don't believe the experiment was actually performed at all.
>
> And with this giant stupidity we close the case.
Oh no we wont..You have by now realized your stupidity in believing this
was a genuine experiment.
Quite obviously stars closer to the sun were deleted because they proved
GR wrong.
The Newtonian predictions AT THE TELESCOPE are approx:
45 degrees 9.83 mas 3.7 mas
90 degrees 4.07 mas 1.56 mas
135 degrees 1.69 mas 0.61 mas
--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 20:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oje46t$gp0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423842 |
Den 03.07.2017 03.34, skrev HGW...:
> On 02/07/17 22:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.07.2017 03.58, skrev HGW...:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
According to equation (1) the predictions of
the deflections by GR and Newton are:
Angle from Sun GR Newton
45 degrees 9.7896 mas 4.8948 mas
90 degrees 4.0550 mas 2.0275 mas
135 degrees 1.6796 mas 0.8398 mas
The angles are obviously as measured "at the telescope".
(Recalculated with better precision)
>>> The Newtonian deflections are considerably smaller than your above
>>
>> I challenge you to prove your claim by showing
>> that the Newtonian predictions are considerably
>> smaller than my above figures.
>>
>
> The Newtonian predictions AT THE TELESCOPE are approx:
> 45 degrees 9.83 mas 3.7 mas
> 90 degrees 4.07 mas 1.56 mas
> 135 degrees 1.69 mas 0.61 mas
I suppose the second row is your calculation of
the Newtonian prediction.
You are bluffing, Ralph.
I accuse you of having pulled these angles out of thin air,
and not calculated anything at all.
Prove me wrong!
----------------------------------
For lurkers:
(Not for you, Ralph. It's simple maths and thus beyond you.)
Equation (1) (with gamma = 1) is:
delta theta_1 = 2GM/rc^2 X sin(chi)/(1-cos(chi) (1)
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 Earth,
chi is the angular distance between the Sun and the star.
delta theta_1 is the deflection angle as measured on the Earth.
The GR equation for the total gravitational deflection by the Sun is:
theta = 4GM/ro.c^2 (2)
where ro is the shortest distance between the light beam and the Sun.
(Note that ro = r.sin(chi) )
Comparing (1) and (2) yields:
delta theta_1 = (4GM/ro.c^2) X (sin^2(chi)/2(1-cos(chi)))
The first term is the total deflection of the beam,
the second term is the reduction of the angle because
at the Earth we are somewhere in the bend.
Angle Total_deflection Reduction deflection from Earth
45 deg 11.4693 mas 0.8536 mas 9.7896 mas
90 deg 8.1100 mas 0.5000 mas 4.0550 mas
135 deg 11.4693 mas 0.1464 mas 1.6796 mas
The 90 degrees can be used as a sanity check.
Since we are in the middle of the bend, we will see
half of the total deflection.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 09:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojekjo$61h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423883 |
On 04/07/17 04:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 03.07.2017 03.34, skrev HGW...: >> On 02/07/17 22:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.07.2017 03.58, skrev HGW...: > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > > According to equation (1) the predictions of > the deflections by GR and Newton are: > > Angle from Sun GR Newton > 45 degrees 9.7896 mas 4.8948 mas > 90 degrees 4.0550 mas 2.0275 mas > 135 degrees 1.6796 mas 0.8398 mas > > > I suppose the second row is your calculation of > the Newtonian prediction. > > You are bluffing, Henry. > I accuse you of having pulled these angles out of thin air, > and not calculated anything at all. The numbers were produced by direct iteration of Newton's equation. They were wrong because I had set the number of iterations too low. I realized the mistake soon after but didn't have time to post the corrections. > Prove me wrong! You were right on this occasion...a very rare event... I accept the fact that I made a temporary mistake...which is something the dingleberry cannot do. > > ---------------------------------- My corrected predictions are 4.89 2.04 0.839 ...But this is of little importance in light of my other revelation.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojg43u$dmf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423908 |
Den 04.07.2017 01.39, skrev HGW...: > On 04/07/17 04:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 03.07.2017 03.34, skrev HGW...: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf >> >> According to equation (1) the predictions of >> the deflections by GR and Newton are: >> >> Angle from Sun GR Newton >> 45 degrees 9.7896 mas 4.8948 mas >> 90 degrees 4.0550 mas 2.0275 mas >> 135 degrees 1.6796 mas 0.8398 mas >> >>> The Newtonian predictions AT THE TELESCOPE are approx: >>> 45 degrees 9.83 mas 3.7 mas >>> 90 degrees 4.07 mas 1.56 mas >>> 135 degrees 1.69 mas 0.61 mas >> >> I suppose the second column is your calculation of >> the Newtonian prediction. >> >> You are bluffing, Ralph. >> I accuse you of having pulled these angles out of thin air, >> and not calculated anything at all. >> >> Prove me wrong! > > You were right on this occasion...a very rare event... > I accept the fact that I made a temporary mistake...which is something > the dingleberry cannot do. A temporary mistake? When will your mistake cease to be a mistake? :-D > > My corrected predictions are > 4.89 > 2.04 > 0.839 Quite. And the measured deflections are: 45 degrees 9.7896 mas 90 degrees 4.0550 mas 135 degrees 1.6796 mas Newton falsified! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 09:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojh8au$2iq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423928 |
On 04/07/17 23:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 04.07.2017 01.39, skrev HGW...: >>> >>> I suppose the second column is your calculation of >>> the Newtonian prediction. >>> >>> You are bluffing, Ralph. >>> I accuse you of having pulled these angles out of thin air, >>> and not calculated anything at all. >>> >>> Prove me wrong! >> >> You were right on this occasion...a very rare event... >> I accept the fact that I made a temporary mistake...which is something >> the dingleberry cannot do. > > A temporary mistake? > When will your mistake cease to be a mistake? :-D I always double check my figures....and I soon realized the mistake. It was a simple computing error. >> My corrected predictions are >> 4.89 >> 2.04 >> 0.839 > > Quite. > And the measured deflections are: > 45 degrees 9.7896 mas > 90 degrees 4.0550 mas > 135 degrees 1.6796 mas > > Newton falsified! Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojhadl$4uk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423960 |
HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > On 04/07/17 23:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Newton falsified! > > Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. > > Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and distrust of scientific evidence. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojhiga$e5b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423962 |
On 05/07/17 10:04, Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >> On 04/07/17 23:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Newton falsified! >> >> Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. >> >> > > Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and distrust > of scientific evidence. Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is source dependent. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4cb8b41-630e-4ec6-8681-4eccd75d2f09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423968 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 8:22:09 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes > from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is > source dependent. Hahahahaha! Ralphie-boy is a cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 03:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojho3e$vc8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423968 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 05/07/17 10:04, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and distrust >> of scientific evidence. >Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes >from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is constant c, since we don't ever see the bizarre light curves from binary stars that source dependent light speed would produce. Never. Ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojj84h$10tp$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423968 |
On 7/4/17 9:22 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 05/07/17 10:04, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >>> On 04/07/17 23:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> Newton falsified! >>> >>> Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. >>> >>> >> >> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and >> distrust >> of scientific evidence. > > Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes > from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is > source dependent. My point exactly. You like YOUR so-called evidence and you distrust scientific evidence. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 10:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojk059$7c2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424028 |
On 06/07/17 03:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/4/17 9:22 PM, HGW... wrote: >>>> Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and >>> distrust >>> of scientific evidence. >> >> Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes >> from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is >> source dependent. > > My point exactly. You like YOUR so-called evidence and you distrust > scientific evidence. I suppose you would class Paul Andersen's fairy tales as 'scientific evidence', would you? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojk163$8gg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424074 |
HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > On 06/07/17 03:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/4/17 9:22 PM, HGW... wrote: > >>>>> Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and >>>> distrust >>>> of scientific evidence. >>> >>> Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes >>> from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is >>> source dependent. >> >> My point exactly. You like YOUR so-called evidence and you distrust >> scientific evidence. > > I suppose you would class Paul Andersen's fairy tales as 'scientific > evidence', would you? > > > I look outside of the newsgroup. [gasp!] -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojk99r$v4p$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424074 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 06/07/17 03:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/4/17 9:22 PM, HGW... wrote: >>>> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and >>>> distrust >>>> of scientific evidence. >>> >>> Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes >>> from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is >>> source dependent. >> >> My point exactly. You like YOUR so-called evidence and you distrust >> scientific evidence. >I suppose you would class Paul Andersen's fairy tales as 'scientific >evidence', would you? Ralph, you prove Odd's point again! You like YOUR so-called evidence but you don't even read all the scientific evidence Paul tries to get you to read. You call the evidence "fairy tales" without even knowing what it says, other than they support relativity and disprove DirtyBaThWater. Thanks again for proving Odd's point, Ralph!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojj87a$10tp$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423968 |
On 7/4/17 9:22 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 05/07/17 10:04, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >>> On 04/07/17 23:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> Newton falsified! >>> >>> Newton will never be falsified by fake experiments. >>> >>> >> >> Ah, a Newton worshipper. I recognize you by your staunch faith and >> distrust >> of scientific evidence. > > Bodkin, the scientific evidence in which I have the most faith comes > from variable star research which clearly shows that light speed is > source dependent. > Just like creationists, who have faith in the experimental evidence of the complexity of the eye which "clearly shows" intelligent design, and they completely distrust the other evidence in favor of evolution. Hmmm..... -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web