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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 02:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojhkmm$eps$7@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423960 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >>> 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. But Newton gets falsified by real experiments all the time, Ralph!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 04:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oje16p$19hq$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.: > > 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, the telescope alignment was based on an assumption that GR was correct. Quote from Wiki: "Corrections due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the corresponding satellite velocity. Modifications due to general relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the PPN formalism. Residuals were examined to establish limits on any deviations from this general relativistic value, and no significant discrepancies were found." Of course no 'discrepancies' would be found! Gamma was ASSUMED TO BE 1!!! What a joke!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 22:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oje8du$57m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423879 |
Den 03.07.2017 20.08, skrev HGW, DSc.: > On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.06.2017 20.16, skrev HGW, DSc.: > >> >> 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, the telescope alignment was based on an assumption that GR was > correct. > Quote from Wiki: "Corrections due to special relativity (stellar > aberration) made use of the corresponding satellite velocity. > Modifications due to general relativistic light bending were significant > (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to the ecliptic) and corrected for > deterministically assuming γ=1 in the PPN formalism. Residuals were > examined to establish limits on any deviations from this general > relativistic value, and no significant discrepancies were found." > > Of course no 'discrepancies' would be found! Gamma was ASSUMED TO BE 1!!! > > What a joke! > Ralph, you are babbling. When you do measurements to compare them with predictions, you obviously don't correct the measured data with the predictions before comparing them. How is it possible to fail to understand that? The Hipparcos mission measured the apparent position of the stars at different times of the year when the Sun was in different positions relative to the stars. It is true that the fact that the apparent position of the star is affected by both parallax and gravitational deflection, is a complication. (And stellar aberration, but this is so well known that it is easy to compensate for.) You must somehow determine how much the change in apparent position is caused by parallax and how much is caused by gravitational deflection. This can be done because: Gravitational deflection affects all stars in the same position relative to the Sun equally. while: parallax depend on the distance to the star, and will affect stars in the same position relative to the Sun differently. and: The direction of the apparent movement will be different for parallax and gravitational bending. However, the correlation between parallax and gravitational bending will affect the precision of the determination of gamma. https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf I have quoted this before: << 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. >> The fact that it is correlation between parallax and gravitational bending does reduce the precision of gamma from 0.001 to 0.003. But it is still very good. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 08:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojegll$1g7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423888 |
On 04/07/17 06:11, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 03.07.2017 20.08, skrev HGW, DSc.: >> On 16/06/17 17:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.06.2017 20.16, skrev HGW, DSc.: >> >>> >>> 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, the telescope alignment was based on an assumption that GR was >> correct. >> Quote from Wiki: "Corrections due to special relativity (stellar >> aberration) made use of the corresponding satellite velocity. >> Modifications due to general relativistic light bending were >> significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to the ecliptic) and corrected for >> deterministically assuming γ=1 in the PPN formalism. Residuals were >> examined to establish limits on any deviations from this general >> relativistic value, and no significant discrepancies were found." >> >> Of course no 'discrepancies' would be found! Gamma was ASSUMED TO BE 1!!! >> >> What a joke! >> > > > Henry, you are babbling. > When you do measurements to compare them with predictions, > you obviously don't correct the measured data with > the predictions before comparing them. > How is it possible to fail to understand that? Paul, you and fellow dingleberries are too stupid to see that you continuously rely on circular methodology. The orientation of the telescope is achieved by aligning it with an image of a distant reference star. Its orientation (relative to what I gather is some kind of defined inertial radio frame) is continually corrected for the presumed bending predicted by GR (or its reading are). Consequently, if you then measure the bending of light from a star, say, near the reference star, naturally you will get the answer that agrees with the GR prediction. :) It is hard to believe you people can be so blatantly fraudulent in your attempts to keep Einstein on his pedestal. > > The Hipparcos mission measured the apparent position of > the stars at different times of the year when the Sun > was in different positions relative to the stars. > > It is true that the fact that the apparent positionnormall > of the star is affected by both parallax and gravitational > deflection, is a complication. > (And stellar aberration, but this is so well known > that it is easy to compensate for.) Not so easy for every star. There is also daily abberation...and a few other types. > You must somehow determine how much the change in > apparent position is caused by parallax and how > much is caused by gravitational deflection. > This can be done because: > Gravitational deflection affects all stars in > the same position relative to the Sun equally. > while: > parallax depend on the distance to the star, > and will affect stars in the same position relativenormall > to the Sun differently. > and: > The direction of the apparent movement will be > different for parallax and gravitational bending. Only on one side. > However, the correlation between parallax and > gravitational bending will affect the precision > of the determination of gamma. ...and you reckon they checked this for every one of he stars they sampled? > > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > I have quoted this before: > << > 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. Parallax is considerably greater than the deflection angle and varies in a number of different timing cycles. The whole experiment is a joke. It had no chance of producing anything other than gamma = 1. > >> > > The fact that it is correlation between parallax and > gravitational bending does reduce the precision of > gamma from 0.001 to 0.003. But it is still very good. Paul, any experiment that presumes anywhere in its theory that the answer it eventually produces is correct, is not worth the paper it is written on. All readings made by the Hipparcos telescope have already been corrected for the predicted GR bending, WHICH WAS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. Naturally, the statistical average will turn out to support GR. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojg2ct$26q$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423899 |
Den 04.07.2017 00.32, skrev HGW...: Here is how Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge thinks the Hipparcos satellite measured and tracked the apparent position of 118000 stars during 3 years: > Paul, you and fellow dingleberries are too stupid to see that you > continuously rely on circular methodology. > The orientation of the telescope is achieved by aligning it with an > image of a distant reference star. Its orientation (relative to what I > gather is some kind of defined inertial radio frame) is continually > corrected for the presumed bending predicted by GR (or its reading are). > Consequently, if you then measure the bending of light from a star, say, > near the reference star, naturally you will get the answer that agrees > with the GR prediction. :) What a beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance! :-D > It is hard to believe you people can be so blatantly fraudulent in your > attempts to keep Einstein on his pedestal. Ralph, a lot of information about the Hipparcos mission can be found on the net. But you will not look it up, because it is much easier to utter naive stupidities about how you think it is done. (I know we discussed Hipparcos years ago, but since you are immune to knowledge, you are still clueless.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 09:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojh8q9$31p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423924 |
On 04/07/17 22:40, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 04.07.2017 00.32, skrev HGW...: > > Here is how Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge thinks the Hipparcos satellite > measured and tracked the apparent position of 118000 stars during > 3 years: > >> Paul, you and fellow dingleberries are too stupid to see that you >> continuously rely on circular methodology. >> The orientation of the telescope is achieved by aligning it with an >> image of a distant reference star. Its orientation (relative to what I >> gather is some kind of defined inertial radio frame) is continually >> corrected for the presumed bending predicted by GR (or its readings are). >> Consequently, if you then measure the bending of light from a star, >> say, near the reference star, naturally you will get the answer that >> agrees with the GR prediction. :) > > What a beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance! :-D > >> It is hard to believe you people can be so blatantly fraudulent in >> your attempts to keep Einstein on his pedestal. > > Henry, a lot of information about the Hipparcos mission > can be found on the net. But you will not look it up, > because it is much easier to utter naive stupidities > about how you think it is done. Paul, you cannot run away. I GAVE you an exact quote from a net article a couple of days ago. It explained how the Hipparcos orientation included a correction for the GR bending of light from its reference star(s) Don't you want to believe it? That's understandable...It makes a mockery of your experiment because it assumes GR is correct even before it does anything. > (I know we discussed Hipparcos years ago, but since you > are immune to knowledge, you are still clueless.) paul, you cannot wriggle out forever. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojjkkf$mg5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #423961 |
Den 05.07.2017 01.36, skrev HGW...: > > Paul, you cannot run away. I GAVE you an exact quote from a net article > a couple of days ago. | Den 03.07.2017 20.08, skrev HGW, DSc.: |> Paul, the telescope alignment was based on an assumption |> that GR was correct. |> quote from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos |> "Corrections due to special relativity (stellar aberration) |> made use of the corresponding satellite velocity. |> Modifications due to general relativistic light bending were |> significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to the ecliptic) and corrected |> for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the PPN formalism. |> Residuals were examined to establish limits on any deviations |> from this general relativistic value, and no significant |> discrepancies were found." The point with the Hipparcos mission was to measure the parallax of stars. When measuring the parallax of stars, the apparent positions must obviously be corrected for aberration and gravitational bending. |> |> Of course no 'discrepancies' would be found! Gamma was ASSUMED TO BE 1!!! |> |> What a joke! Reading is hard, isn't it? :-D It is remarkable that you can read an article about Hipparcos, and understand absolute nothing of what it says. (It's not a very good article, though, and the section you quoted from is particularly bad.) What do you think this statement means, Ralph? "Residuals were examined to establish limits on any deviations from this general relativistic value, and no significant discrepancies were found." The Hipparcos satellite measured and tracked the apparent position (as seen from the satellite) of 118000 stars during 3 years. That means that it had a lot of measurements of each star at different times of the year. To find the parallax, the measurements must be corrected. If the corrections are wrong, the data will be inconsistent, you will get different values for the parallax of each star. You will get discrepancies. The statement above says that with gamma = 1, no significant discrepancies were found, so the GR correction must be correct. > It explained how the Hipparcos orientation > included a correction for the GR bending of light from its reference > star(s) This demonstrates that you have no clue about how Hipparcos worked. And it is even worse than that! It demonstrates that you believe Hipparcos worked in a way which any sane person must understand is impossible! It is incredible stupid to believe that the corrections somehow could be done to the orientation of the satellite before each of the many measurements of each of the 118000 stars! If you read the section: "Satellite and payload" of the article you quoted from, you can get an idea of how the Hipparcos worked. The description is not very good, though, so if you really are interested, I am sure you can find better description. But of course, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge is not interested in learning anything. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 10:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojk0rs$88m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424063 |
On 06/07/17 07:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 05.07.2017 01.36, skrev HGW...: >> >> Paul, you cannot run away. I GAVE you an exact quote from a net >> article a couple of days ago. > > | Den 03.07.2017 20.08, skrev HGW, DSc.: > |> Paul, the telescope alignment was based on an assumption > |> that GR was correct. > |> quote from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos > |> "Corrections due to special relativity (stellar aberration) > |> made use of the corresponding satellite velocity. > |> Modifications due to general relativistic light bending were > |> significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to the ecliptic) and corrected > |> for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the PPN formalism. > |> Residuals were examined to establish limits on any deviations > |> from this general relativistic value, and no significant > |> discrepancies were found." > > The point with the Hipparcos mission was to measure the parallax > of stars. When measuring the parallax of stars, the apparent > positions must obviously be corrected for aberration and > gravitational bending. > > |> > |> Of course no 'discrepancies' would be found! Gamma was ASSUMED TO BE > 1!!! > |> > |> What a joke! > > Reading is hard, isn't it? :-D > It is remarkable that you can read an article about Hipparcos, > and understand absolute nothing of what it says. > (It's not a very good article, though, and the section you > quoted from is particularly bad.) HAHAHHHAHHAHHAHHAHA! It is only 'bad' because it reveals how dingleberries will cheat and fake experiments to make their hero seem like a genius. > What do you think this statement means, Ralph? > "Residuals were examined to establish limits on any deviations > from this general relativistic value, and no significant > discrepancies were found." That is what was in the paper you referred to. Of course they found gamma = 1. The bloody telescope was out by that much. > The Hipparcos satellite measured and tracked the apparent position > (as seen from the satellite) of 118000 stars during 3 years. > That means that it had a lot of measurements of each star at > different times of the year. To find the parallax, the measurements > must be corrected. If the corrections are wrong, the data will be > inconsistent, you will get different values for the parallax of > each star. You will get discrepancies. No Paul, think about it. The telescope is aligned with a particular distant star. If the light from that star is assumed to be bent by the GR predicted amount, then quite obviously the light from all the stars in its vicinity will be measured to have been bent by that amount. IF the assumption was that it was bent by 25 degrees, so would that from all the other stars. HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHHA! Can you now see the joke? > The statement above says that with gamma = 1, no significant > discrepancies were found, so the GR correction must be correct. Naturally that is the answer they got. The GR prediction was assumed in the experiment's theory. >> It explained how the Hipparcos orientation included a correction for >> the GR bending of light from its reference star(s) > > This demonstrates that you have no clue about how Hipparcos worked. > And it is even worse than that! It demonstrates that you believe > Hipparcos worked in a way which any sane person must understand > is impossible! > It is incredible stupid to believe that the corrections somehow > could be done to the orientation of the satellite before each > of the many measurements of each of the 118000 stars! You cannot escape Paul. The experiment was an innocent fake. I', sure the idiots who did it didn't realize how stupid they were. > If you read the section: "Satellite and payload" > of the article you quoted from, you can get an idea > of how the Hipparcos worked. The description is not > very good, though, so if you really are interested, > I am sure you can find better description. No escape Paul...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojkpvf$ccj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #424075 |
Den 06.07.2017 02.39, skrev HGW...: > > No Paul, think about it. The telescope is aligned with a particular > distant star. If the light from that star is assumed to be bent by the > GR predicted amount, then quite obviously the light from all the stars > in its vicinity will be measured to have been bent by that amount. > > IF the assumption was that it was bent by 25 degrees, so would that from > all the other stars. HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHHA! Can you now see the joke? Thanks for confirming the words in my previous posting: > On 06/07/17 07:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> This demonstrates that you have no clue about how Hipparcos worked. >> And it is even worse than that! It demonstrates that you believe >> Hipparcos worked in a way which any sane person must understand >> is impossible! >> It is incredible stupid to believe that the corrections somehow >> could be done to the orientation of the satellite before each >> of the many measurements of each of the 118000 stars! > > You cannot escape Paul. The experiment was an innocent fake. I', sure > the idiots who did it didn't realize how stupid they were. Slightly funny, but veeery pathetic! >> If you read the section: "Satellite and payload" >> of the article you quoted from, you can get an idea >> of how the Hipparcos worked. The description is not >> very good, though, so if you really are interested, >> I am sure you can find better description. > > No escape Paul... Thanks for confirming the words in my previous posting: >> But of course, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge is not interested >> in learning anything. Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. 'nuff now! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 20:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojl28j$1k2a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424086 |
On 06/07/17 17:47, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.07.2017 02.39, skrev HGW...: > > >> On 06/07/17 07:10, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> This demonstrates that you have no clue about how Hipparcos worked. >>> And it is even worse than that! It demonstrates that you believe >>> Hipparcos worked in a way which any sane person must understand >>> is impossible! >>> It is incredible stupid to believe that the corrections somehow >>> could be done to the orientation of the satellite before each >>> of the many measurements of each of the 118000 stars! >> >> You cannot escape Paul. The experiment was an innocent fake. I', sure >> the idiots who did it didn't realize how stupid they were. > > Slightly funny, but veeery pathetic! > >>> If you read the section: "Satellite and payload" >>> of the article you quoted from, you can get an idea >>> of how the Hipparcos worked. The description is not >>> very good, though, so if you really are interested, >>> I am sure you can find better description. >> >> No escape Paul... > > Thanks for confirming the words in my previous posting: > >>> But of course, Henry George Wilson is not interested >>> in learning anything. > > Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. Paul, here is a picture of two adjacent stars. One, *', is used by Hipparcos for alignment. *' === Hipparcos * Hipparcos ASSUMES the light from * is bent according to the GR formula. The separation between the two stars does not alter. So what bending do you think Hipparcos would find for star *' I think you should contact the authors of the paper and tell them that Henry Wilson is still laughing at their stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojlg5i$4ui$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424092 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 06/07/17 17:47, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Ignorance of own ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance. Pay attention, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, he's talking about YOU! >Paul, here is a picture of two adjacent stars. One, *', is used by >Hipparcos for alignment. >*' === Hipparcos >* >Hipparcos ASSUMES the light from * is bent according to the GR formula. >The separation between the two stars does not alter. So what bending do >you think Hipparcos would find for star *' Ralph, Hipparcos measures light from stars that are WIDELY SEPARATED from each other. Using your example, the reference star could be away from the sun while the second is closer to the sun, and then later the reference star is closer to the sun while the second is further away! It is easy to find the differences in bending from that data! >I think you should contact the authors of the paper and tell them that >Henry Wilson is still laughing at their stupidity. Ralph, the laughter you hear is from people who actually know physics. And they are not laughing with you, they are laughing at you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojm61o$3ha$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #424106 |
Den 06.07.2017 16.06, skrev Michael Moroney: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> Paul, here is a picture of two adjacent stars. One, *', is used by >> Hipparcos for alignment. > >> *' === Hipparcos >> * > >> Hipparcos ASSUMES the light from * is bent according to the GR formula. > >> The separation between the two stars does not alter. So what bending do >> you think Hipparcos would find for star *' > > Ralph, Hipparcos measures light from stars that are WIDELY SEPARATED from > each other. Using your example, the reference star could be away from > the sun while the second is closer to the sun, and then later the > reference star is closer to the sun while the second is further away! > It is easy to find the differences in bending from that data! There is no particular reference star. The basic principle is like this: The Hipparcos telescope projects the images of two 0.9 x 0.9 degrees fields separated by 58 degrees onto a common focal surface. At any time, there will be 4-5 stars in each field. Between these 16-25 pairs of stars the exact angular distance can be measured. (The measuring method is very ingenious, see reference below.) The satellite is rotating with one rotation during 2 hours, which means that each star will use ca. 20 seconds to pass through the 0.9 degrees field. During one rotation, a 0.9 degree great circle strip with ca. 2000 stars will be scanned. The angular distance between all these stars (as seen from the satellite) will now be known in one dimension - along the great circle. The spin axis will be slowly rotated, so that different, but partly overlapping great circle strips are scanned every 2 hours. The data from several great circle strips can be combined to give a 2 dimensional map of their position (as seen from the satellite). During the 3+ years, the whole sky was scanned several times, which means that the position of each of the 118210 stars were measured several times with the Sun in different positions. The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. (Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) The raw data sent down to Earth as the measurements were done were not corrected in any way. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Hipparcos_overview https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/payload https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/data-reductions -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojmim7$7o9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424136 |
On 07/07/17 06:20, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.07.2017 16.06, skrev Michael Moroney: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >>> Paul, here is a picture of two adjacent stars. One, *', is used by >>> Hipparcos for alignment. >> >>> *' === Hipparcos >>> * >> >>> Hipparcos ASSUMES the light from * is bent according to the GR formula. >> >>> The separation between the two stars does not alter. So what bending do >>> you think Hipparcos would find for star *' >> >> Ralph, Hipparcos measures light from stars that are WIDELY SEPARATED from >> each other. Using your example, the reference star could be away from >> the sun while the second is closer to the sun, and then later the >> reference star is closer to the sun while the second is further away! >> It is easy to find the differences in bending from that data! > > There is no particular reference star. > The basic principle is like this: The Hipparcos telescope > projects the images of two 0.9 x 0.9 degrees fields separated > by 58 degrees onto a common focal surface. At any time, there > will be 4-5 stars in each field. Between these 16-25 pairs of > stars the exact angular distance can be measured. (The measuring > method is very ingenious, see reference below.) The satellite > is rotating with one rotation during 2 hours, which means that > each star will use ca. 20 seconds to pass through the 0.9 degrees > field. During one rotation, a 0.9 degree great circle strip with > ca. 2000 stars will be scanned. The angular distance between > all these stars (as seen from the satellite) will now be known > in one dimension - along the great circle. > The spin axis will be slowly rotated, so that different, but > partly overlapping great circle strips are scanned every 2 hours. > The data from several great circle strips can be combined to > give a 2 dimensional map of their position (as seen from the > satellite). During the 3+ years, the whole sky was scanned several > times, which means that the position of each of the 118210 stars > were measured several times with the Sun in different positions. > > The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. > (Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was > supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly > a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) > > The raw data sent down to Earth as the measurements were > done were not corrected in any way. > > http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Hipparcos_overview > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/payload > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/data-reductions Paul, none of that makes any difference to what I said. The plain fact is, the light from ALL reference stars was ASSUMED to be bent according to GR. That means that all the other stars, whatever their locations would also be shown on average to be bent by the GR prediction. If Newton's equation had been used, then the overall results would favour Newton. You cannot run away Paul. Hipparcos might have been very clever but this experiment was a fake. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 16:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojo535$had$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #424147 |
Den 07.07.2017 01.55, skrev HGW...: > On 07/07/17 06:20, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Hipparcos_overview >> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/payload >> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/data-reductions > > Paul, none of that makes any difference to what I said. > The plain fact is, SIC! :-D > the light from ALL reference stars was ASSUMED to be bent according > to GR. That means that all the other stars, whatever their locations > would also be shown on average to be bent by the GR prediction. > If Newton's equation had been used, then the overall results would > favour Newton. > > You cannot run away Paul. Hipparcos might have been very clever but this > experiment was a fake. Sure, Ralph. Down under the plain fact is that all the data in the Hipparcos catalogue are faked. https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/search-facility I live up above were facts aren't upside down, though. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 09:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojp5ec$2mv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424182 |
On 08/07/17 00:16, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 07.07.2017 01.55, skrev HGW...: >> >> Paul, none of that makes any difference to what I said. > The plain >> fact is, > > SIC! :-D > >> the light from ALL reference stars was ASSUMED to be bent according to >> GR. That means that all the other stars, whatever their locations >> would also be shown on average to be bent by the GR prediction. >> If Newton's equation had been used, then the overall results would >> favour Newton. >> >> You cannot run away Paul. Hipparcos might have been very clever but >> this experiment was a fake. > > Sure, Henry. Down under the plain fact is that all > the data in the Hipparcos catalogue are faked. No Paul, you must have reading comprehension problem. Hipparcos was not intended solely to verify Einstyein's silly theory. It readings are perfec tly sound and worthwhile. It mapped some of the sky and established parallax distances for many stars. The fact that it assumed GR defection is of no significance to its main purpose. The error in bending is too small to worry about. > > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/search-facility > > I live up above were facts aren't upside down, though. You mind lives in fairyland if you believe anything in that faked paper. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojoabl$jjd$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424147 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >Paul, none of that makes any difference to what I said. The plain fact >is, the light from ALL reference stars was ASSUMED to be bent according >to GR. That means that all the other stars, whatever their locations >would also be shown on average to be bent by the GR prediction. No, Ralph. Simultaneous measurements were made of stars 57 degrees apart. That would mean that even if assumptions were made as to their bending, any pair of stars 57 degrees apart would be bent by quite different amounts, there would be a difference in the bending which would translate to differences in relative positions. You could go through the data assuming Newton was correct, calculate the Newtonian bending of two stars 57 degrees apart and then their relative positions and see if that matches the data. You could then go through the data assuming GR was correct, calculate the GR bending of two stars 57 degrees apart and then their relative positions and see if that matches the data. >If Newton's equation had been used, then the overall results would >favour Newton. Nope, they would use Newton's equations and calculate a difference of offsets for two stars 57 degrees apart, and they'd notice the actual offset would be about twice that (because of GR). >You cannot run away Paul. Hipparcos might have been very clever but this >experiment was a fake. You cannot run away, Ralph. No matter what excuses you try to dream up, the fact remains that DirtyBaThWater has been disproven, and is disproven again and again, daily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 09:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojp5vp$3b8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424190 |
On 08/07/17 01:45, Michael Moroney stuck his nose in where it didn't belong and provided even more evidence of his stupidity...... Reference stars are used on both sides of the sun. There are lots of them. If the deflection of a reference star is assumed to be x then all those around it will also be assumed to bend by that amount.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 07:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojq1vq$7f5$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424215 |
Ralph Rabbidge stuck his nose in where it didn't belong and provided even more evidence of his stupidity...... >Reference stars are used on both sides of the sun. There are lots of >them. If the deflection of a reference star is assumed to be x then all >those around it will also be assumed to bend by that amount. Ralph, stars 57 degrees different from each other will not be assumed to have the same deflection! Because they won't! 57 degrees is nearly 1/6 of a full circle, Ralph! Also, Ralph, there are no specific reference stars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 10:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojrrp1$1hch$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424249 |
. On 08/07/17 17:35, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ralph Rabbidge stuck his nose in where it didn't belong and provided even > more evidence of his stupidity...... > >> Reference stars are used on both sides of the sun. There are lots of >> them. If the deflection of a reference star is assumed to be x then all >> those around it will also be assumed to bend by that amount. > > Ralph, stars 57 degrees different from each other will not be assumed to > have the same deflection! Of course they wont, moron. They will be assumed to have the same """GR BASED"""" deflection as a reference star near them. Because they won't! 57 degrees is nearly 1/6 of > a full circle, Henry! DEEErrrrrrrr!!!! > Also, Henry, there are no specific reference stars. Of course there are... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 02:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojs3e4$vb7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424308 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >. >On 08/07/17 17:35, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ralph Rabbidge stuck his nose in where it didn't belong and provided even >> more evidence of his stupidity...... >> >>> Reference stars are used on both sides of the sun. There are lots of >>> them. If the deflection of a reference star is assumed to be x then all >>> those around it will also be assumed to bend by that amount. >> >> Ralph, stars 57 degrees different from each other will not be assumed to >> have the same deflection! >Of course they wont, moron. They will be assumed to have the same """GR >BASED"""" deflection as a reference star near them. Ralph, 57 degrees apart is not "near" each other by any stretch of the imagination. Did you ever read how the system even worked? I didn't think so, Ralph. >Because they won't! 57 degrees is nearly 1/6 of >> a full circle, Ralph! >DEEErrrrrrrr!!!! Yes, DEEErrrrrrrr. So you admit that there would be no reason for the two stars, one near the Sun and the other away, would be assumed to have the same GR deflection. Because GR will predict quite different deflections for them. >> Also, Ralph, there are no specific reference stars. >Of course there are... So let's see your reference from all the specifications and papers that discuss these reference stars, Ralph. Oh that's right, Ralph, you never read any of that (because you are too scared to), so you just assumed there just had to be reference stars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web