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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojstc3$mg1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424320 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>DEEErrrrrrrr!!!! > > Yes, DEEErrrrrrrr. So you admit that there would be no reason for the > two stars, one near the Sun and the other away, would be assumed to have > the same GR deflection. Because GR will predict quite different > deflections for them. Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. It the Sun's GR, the mass of the stars and their intensity is totally irrelevant, morony. Go to school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojtdd5$qm9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424346 |
The nymshifting troll, posting as Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >>>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. >Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The >deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. Kind of like claiming 9 = -9.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojtdu8$19g0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424375 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Yes, DEEErrrrrrrr. So you admit that there would be no reason for the >>> two stars, one near the Sun and the other away, would be assumed to >>> have the same GR deflection. Because GR will predict quite different >>> deflections for them. > >>Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The >>deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. > > No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly > opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. > Kind of like claiming 9 = -9. Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from now on. Forget anything you think you know about Math and Physics. This will take you about 2 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojtn35$q4m$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424376 |
The nymshifting troll, posting as Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >>The nymshifting troll, posting as Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> writes: >>>Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> 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. >> >>>Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The >>>deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. >> >> No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly >> opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. >> Kind of like claiming 9 = -9. >Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. >Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The >Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from >now on. So there we have it. The nymshifting troll is so dumb that it believes that 9 = -9 because abs(9) equals abs(-9). Who else do we know that can't do 4th grade math like that? Who else also writes things like "Gee you are so fucking stupid."? Is Stupid Ken Seto the nymshifting troll?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojtor6$1sgu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424388 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. >>Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The >>Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from >>now on. > > So there we have it. The nymshifting troll is so dumb that it believes > that 9 = -9 because abs(9) equals abs(-9). Who said that, you fucking moron. Can't you fucking read the context. He said that, not me. You lying son of a bitch. Go away, you are a known imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojtp9a$1t07$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424388 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>> No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly >>> opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. >>> Kind of like claiming 9 = -9. > >>Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. >>Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The >>Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from >>now on. > > So there we have it. The nymshifting troll is so dumb that it believes > that 9 = -9 because abs(9) equals abs(-9). Morony, the stupid, just gave the proof on his incompetency in physics modelling, not seeing the Scenario is all about Absolute Quantities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oju125$7j1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424388 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>> No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly >>> opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. >>> Kind of like claiming 9 = -9. > >>Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. >>Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The >>Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from >>now on. > > So there we have it. The nymshifting troll is so dumb that it believes > that 9 = -9 because abs(9) equals abs(-9). Who else do we know that > can't do 4th grade math like that? Who else also writes things like > "Gee you are so fucking stupid."? Is Stupid Ken Seto the nymshifting > troll? Curvature is positive, hence absolute, around the Sun and everything. Negative curvature might be possible in special configurations, involving "wormholes" etc, but one may sit and wonder, how much physics you don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 02:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojuog5$tt$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424401 |
The nymshifting troll, now posting as Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >>The nymshifting troll, posting as Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> writes: >>>Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> No, nymshifter, in that case the GR deflections will be in exactly >>>> opposite directions. Equal in magnitude perhaps but opposite signs. >>>> Kind of like claiming 9 = -9. >> >>>Gee you are so fuckins stupid. Of course those comes by opposites signs. >>>Did you find that shit by yourself, or somebody helped you out? The >>>Abs(-9) equals Abs(9), my little friend. Talk about something else from >>>now on. >> >> So there we have it. The nymshifting troll is so dumb that it believes >> that 9 = -9 because abs(9) equals abs(-9). Who else do we know that >> can't do 4th grade math like that? Who else also writes things like >> "Gee you are so fucking stupid."? Is Stupid Ken Seto the nymshifting >> troll? >Curvature is positive, hence absolute, around the Sun and everything. >Negative curvature might be possible in special configurations, involving >"wormholes" etc, but one may sit and wonder, how much physics you don't >know. Nobody is talking about positive and negative curvature, nymshifter. You were talking about the special case when the sun was in the middle. >>>Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The >>>deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. In that case, the light of the star to the left might be shifted 9 units to the right (toward the sun) and the light of the star to the right might be shifted 9 units to the left (toward the sun, and -9 units to the right) so the two stars have 18 units difference in the amount they were shifted. I would expect you to understand how the light is shifted (deflected) better since you are such an expert at shifting nyms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 10:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ok170q$rc5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424409 |
On 10/07/17 12:24, The Funniest Irish Joke wrote: > The nymshifting troll, now posting as Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> writes: > > >> Curvature is positive, hence absolute, around the Sun and everything. >> Negative curvature might be possible in special configurations, involving >> "wormholes" etc, but one may sit and wonder, how much physics you don't >> know. > > Nobody is talking about positive and negative curvature, nymshifter. > > You were talking about the special case when the sun was in the middle. > >>>> Not so when symmetric and the Sun is in the middle of the two. The >>>> deflection has to be 100% exactly the same. > > In that case, the light of the star to the left might be shifted 9 units > to the right (toward the sun) and the light of the star to the right might > be shifted 9 units to the left (toward the sun, and -9 units to the right) > so the two stars have 18 units difference in the amount they were shifted. > I would expect you to understand how the light is shifted (deflected) > better since you are such an expert at shifting nyms. Moron-y, the telescope does not focus on every star individually and record its coordinates. In every section of the sky, there are reference stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is estimated from their proximity to those. Since the reference star light is assumed to bend by the GR prediction, its coordinates are adjusted accordingly. That means the light from all the surrounding stars will also appear to be bent by the GR prediction. It doesn't matter which side of the sun they are on. That is the reason for gamma being 1 in the experiment PA has referred to.. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbe26255-8096-4e9c-8632-c31af927f233@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424462 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:44:16 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > ... In every section of the sky, there are reference > stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is > estimated from their proximity to those... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you just get more vacuous and dull-witted with the passage of time. This last statement of yours is, famously, 'not even wrong'... I now doubt that you have ever taken any physics classes at all, let along earned a degree of any kind...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 19:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ok25j2$50f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424478 |
On 11/07/17 13:09, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:44:16 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: > >> ... In every section of the sky, there are reference >> stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is >> estimated from their proximity to those... > >Henry George Wilson, you just get more vacuous and dull-witted with the passage of time. This last statement of yours is, famously, 'not even wrong'... I now doubt that you have ever taken any physics classes at all, let along earned a degree of any kind... > I taught physics for two years, idiot! Either say something intelligent or STFU. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ok7sb7$1u9f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424493 |
On 13/07/17 03:04, Vern Garriott wrote: > Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Curvature is positive, hence absolute, around the Sun and everything. >> >> Negative curvature might be possible in special configurations, >> >> involving "wormholes" etc, but one may sit and wonder, how much >> >> physics you don't know. >> >> > Nobody is talking about positive and negative curvature, nymshifter. >> >> You are a total imbecile then. Is it an echo in here? >> Also by thinking, that knowing the difference between positive and >> negative numbers makes you a smart ass. Toootally unfit in physics. > > That is why he has a country shithouse named after him in the far north > of Ireland. It's an old tin shed built around a hole in the ground with > the name 'Michael Moron-y' plastered all over it and a big sign saying > "visitors welcome".... This elucidate his capacities, the lack of, in the vast domain of physics. Exhibits grandoma, but enough exchanging two words with him, then realizing the moron has no education whatsoever. Good point, making us aware of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ok2maf$n7l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424478 |
pnalsing@gmail.com writes: >On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:44:16 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote: >> ... In every section of the sky, there are reference >> stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is >> estimated from their proximity to those... >Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you just get more vacuous and dull-witted with the >passage of time. This last statement of yours is, famously, 'not even >wrong'... I now doubt that you have ever taken any physics classes at >all, let along earned a degree of any kind... Ralph got a Participant Award in "Introduction to Photoshop" a while ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ok2nu8$n7l$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424462 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hgw@....> writes: >Moron-y, the telescope does not focus on every star individually and >record its coordinates. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again you prove to all that you have never read the Hipparcos satellite description, and you probably never will. Ralph, if you had read that, you'd know that Hipparcos focused two 1°×1° patches of sky 58° apart onto a single sensor. At any point in time, each field of view typically had 4-5 stars in it. While the stars in one patch of sky would have similar deflections to each other, they would have very different deflections from the other group of stars 58° away! > In every section of the sky, there are reference >stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is >estimated from their proximity to those. No, Ralph, you are making crap up to try to defend your failed DirtyBaThWater. The only "reference" stars possible is that all the stars in one of the two fields of view would have similar deflections and could be used as references to each other. But the other group would have very different deflections! > Since the reference star light is assumed by you to actually exist, you jump to completely false assumptions, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 08:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ok3iod$bek$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424508 |
On 12/07/17 00:39, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hgw@....> writes: > >> Moron-y, the telescope does not focus on every star individually and >> record its coordinates. > > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again you prove to all that you have never > read the Hipparcos satellite description, and you probably never will. > > Henry, if you had read that, you'd know that Hipparcos focused two 1°×1° > patches of sky 58° apart onto a single sensor. At any point in time, each > field of view typically had 4-5 stars in it. While the stars in one patch > of sky would have similar deflections to each other, they would have very > different deflections from the other group of stars 58° away!' Of course they do you dopey Irish comedian. Do you think I don't know that. It is irrelevant. >> In every section of the sky, there are reference >> stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is >> estimated from their proximity to those. > > No, Henry, you are making crap up to try to defend your failed > DirtyBaThWater. The only "reference" stars possible is that all the > stars in one of the two fields of view would have similar deflections > and could be used as references to each other. But the other group would > have very different deflections! Of course they would. Tell us something We don't know... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ok44c7$hc5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424554 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 12/07/17 00:39, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> Moron-y, the telescope does not focus on every star individually and >>> record its coordinates. >> >> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again you prove to all that you have never >> read the Hipparcos satellite description, and you probably never will. >> >> Ralph, if you had read that, you'd know that Hipparcos focused two 1°×1° >> patches of sky 58° apart onto a single sensor. At any point in time, each >> field of view typically had 4-5 stars in it. While the stars in one patch >> of sky would have similar deflections to each other, they would have very >> different deflections from the other group of stars 58° away!' >Of course they do you dopey Irish comedian. Do you think I don't know >that. Yes, Ralph, it was obvious that you didn't know that. Otherwise you'd know that Hipparcos compared two stars 58° apart, and these stars would have significantly different deflections under both Newtonian and GR predictions, and you wouldn't be whining how two stars next to each other would have the same deflection. >>> In every section of the sky, there are reference >>> stars with known coordinates and the positions of stars around them is >>> estimated from their proximity to those. >> >> No, Ralph, you are making crap up to try to defend your failed >> DirtyBaThWater. The only "reference" stars possible is that all the >> stars in one of the two fields of view would have similar deflections >> and could be used as references to each other. But the other group would >> have very different deflections! >Of course they would. Tell us something We don't know... Yet you ignored that fact completely, Ralph!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48533359-dd1e-4e9b-9d44-af14ce8abd53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424584 |
W dniu środa, 12 lipca 2017 05:17:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > > >On 12/07/17 00:39, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hgw@....> writes: > >> > >>> Moron-y, the telescope does not focus on every star individually and > >>> record its coordinates. > >> > >> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again you prove to all that you have never > >> read the Hipparcos satellite description, and you probably never will. > >> > >> Ralph, if you had read that, you'd know that Hipparcos focused two 1°×1° > >> patches of sky 58° apart onto a single sensor. At any point in time, each > >> field of view typically had 4-5 stars in it. While the stars in one patch > >> of sky would have similar deflections to each other, they would have very > >> different deflections from the other group of stars 58° away!' > > >Of course they do you dopey Irish comedian. Do you think I don't know > >that. > > Yes, Ralph, it was obvious that you didn't know that. Otherwise you'd > know that Hipparcos compared two stars 58° apart, and these stars would > have significantly different deflections under both Newtonian and GR > predictions According to your Shit light path in vacuum is straight/ geodesic line, i.e. there is no deflection. Hipparcos doesn't treat your Shit seriously. In fact, nobody does, because it can't be treaten seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 11:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okclra$rct$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #424554 |
Den 12.07.2017 00.16, skrev HGW...: > > Tell us something We don't know... > 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 And you still don't know, and never will. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 03:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okenft$lum$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424986 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: <snip excellent writeup> >The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. >(Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was > supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly > a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) What data got lost/experiments were unable to be performed because the satellite wasn't in the intended orbit? (if none, why was there an attempt at placing it in a geostationary orbit at all?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okfk83$o4c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425106 |
Den 16.07.2017 05.45, skrev Michael Moroney: > "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: > > <snip excellent writeup> > >> 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.) > > What data got lost/experiments were unable to be performed because the > satellite wasn't in the intended orbit? I don't think much data was lost, but aberration corrections etc. would be more complex. https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/launch-and-operations-phase > (if none, why was there an > attempt at placing it in a geostationary orbit at all?) > The data were downloaded to the ground as they were collected, and with a geostationary orbit a single ground station would be sufficient. With the actual orbit, three ground stations were necessary. Since these were not planned before the launch, it was probably some delay before they were functional. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web