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 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 08:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okgq49$dti$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425133 |
On 16/07/17 21:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 16.07.2017 05.45, skrev Michael Moroney: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >> >> <snip excellent writeup> >> >>> The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. >>> (Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was >>> supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly >>> a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) >> >> What data got lost/experiments were unable to be performed because the >> satellite wasn't in the intended orbit? > > I don't think much data was lost, but aberration corrections etc. > would be more complex. > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/launch-and-operations-phase Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The larger the orbit, the smaller the natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it aligned to reference stars. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 14:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okibp4$e46$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425233 |
Den 17.07.2017 00.42, skrev HGW...: > On 16/07/17 21:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 16.07.2017 05.45, skrev Michael Moroney: >>> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >>> >>> <snip excellent writeup> >>> >>>> The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. >>>> (Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was >>>> supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly >>>> a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) >>> >>> What data got lost/experiments were unable to be performed because the >>> satellite wasn't in the intended orbit? >> >> I don't think much data was lost, but aberration corrections etc. >> would be more complex. >> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/launch-and-operations-phase > > Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The larger the orbit, the smaller the > natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it > aligned to reference stars. If there is some kind of thought behind this nonsensical statement, it would be very interesting to have it explained. :-D It is also very interesting to note that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge still is ignorant of the fact that the Hipparcos satellite was constantly rotating with a 2 hours period, and never was aligned at any star. Each star passed through the observed field during 20 seconds. One can but admire Ralph's ability to keep his mind uncontaminated by knowledge. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 08:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okjfbm$kfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425294 |
On 17/07/17 22:49, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.07.2017 00.42, skrev HGW...: >> On 16/07/17 21:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> What data got lost/experiments were unable to be performed because the >>>> satellite wasn't in the intended orbit? >>> >>> I don't think much data was lost, but aberration corrections etc. >>> would be more complex. >>> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/launch-and-operations-phase >> >> Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The larger the orbit, the smaller the >> natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it >> aligned to reference stars. > > If there is some kind of thought behind this nonsensical statement, > it would be very interesting to have it explained. :-D > > It is also very interesting to note that Henry George Wilson > still is ignorant of the fact that the Hipparcos satellite was > constantly rotating with a 2 hours period, and never was aligned > at any star. Each star passed through the observed field during > 20 seconds. Paul, you really are becoming quite pathetic. Of course I know that. It is the axis of rotation that must be aligned...and that is achieved with the use of reference stars. > One can but admire Henry's ability to keep his mind > uncontaminated by knowledge. Paul is becoming really desperate now...... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 05:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okk53p$nl0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425400 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 17/07/17 22:49, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> It is also very interesting to note that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge >> still is ignorant of the fact that the Hipparcos satellite was >> constantly rotating with a 2 hours period, and never was aligned >> at any star. Each star passed through the observed field during >> 20 seconds. >Paul, you really are becoming quite pathetic. Of course I know that. It >is the axis of rotation that must be aligned...and that is achieved with >the use of reference stars. Ralph, you should have read what Paul wrote earlier. To wit: :The spin axis will be slowly rotated, so that different, but :partly overlapping great circle strips are scanned every 2 hours. :The data from several great circle strips can be combined to :give a 2 dimensional map of their position (as seen from the :satellite). During the 3+ years, the whole sky was scanned several :times, which means that the position of each of the 118210 stars :were measured several times with the Sun in different positions. Or you should have read what I wrote, Ralph Rabbidge, instead of just posting one of your pathetic lame attacks, Ralph: :No, Ralph. It is obvious you didn't read (or understand) Paul's :description. It rotates scanning the sky in a narrow strip and the axis :of rotation slowly shifts so the next rotation overlaps the first but :isn't exactly the same as the first pass. (Hey, John Sefton! Quick!! :A precessing spinny thing!!!) As the axis of rotation slowly shifts, :eventually the whole sky is covered. :As you see, Ralph, the rotational axis is constantly changing, so no :need for reference stars. The 8-10 stars being imaged at any :particular time are references for each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 09:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okm5rt$ue2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425430 |
On 18/07/17 15:08, Michael Moroney wrote "please take pity on me. I was born an idiot and can't change that".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 20:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okljej$ou3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425400 |
Den 18.07.2017 00.56, skrev HGW...: > On 17/07/17 22:49, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 17.07.2017 00.42, skrev HGW...: >>> On 16/07/17 21:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>>> 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 >>> >>> Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The larger the orbit, the smaller the >>> natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it >>> aligned to reference stars. >> >> If there is some kind of thought behind this nonsensical statement, >> it would be very interesting to have it explained. :-D I see. :-D >> >> It is also very interesting to note that Henry George Wilson >> still is ignorant of the fact that the Hipparcos satellite was >> constantly rotating with a 2 hours period, and never was aligned >> at any star. Each star passed through the observed field during >> 20 seconds. > > Paul, you really are becoming quite pathetic. Of course I know that. No you don't. If you had known that the telescope was never aligned at any star you wouldn't have written: Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: |" Any telescope will have to be perfectly aligned to some cosmic | object if its readings are to be meaningful." And you still have no clue of how Hipparcos worked, you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are unable to learn. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 10:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okm8ti$12gh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425512 |
On 19/07/17 04:18, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.07.2017 00.56, skrev HGW...: >> >> Paul, you really are becoming quite pathetic. Of course I know that. > > No you don't. > If you had known that the telescope was never aligned > at any star you wouldn't have written: > Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: > |" Any telescope will have to be perfectly aligned to some cosmic > | object if its readings are to be meaningful." > > And you still have no clue of how Hipparcos worked, you have > thoroughly demonstrated that you are unable to learn. Paul, nowhere does it say that Hipparcos relies entirely on its on-board gyroscopes for its axis alignment....which is virtually what you are claiming. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 08:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okgq0r$dti$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424986 |
On 15/07/17 19:04, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 12.07.2017 00.16, skrev HGW...: >> >> Tell us something We don't know... >> > > > There is no particular reference star. > The basic principle is like this: The Hipparcos telescope > projects the images of two 0.9 x 0.9 degrees fields separated > by 58 degrees onto a common focal surface. At any time, there > will be 4-5 stars in each field. Between these 16-25 pairs of > stars the exact angular distance can be measured. (The measuring > times, which means that the position of each of the 118210 stars > were measured several times with the Sun in different positions. > > The Hipparcos satellite was in an eccentric 10 hour orbit. > (Which is a far cry from the geostationary orbit it was > supposed to have, but even if the launch was partly > a failure, the mission was very successful anyway.) > > The raw data sent down to Earth as the measurements were > done were not corrected in any way. > > http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Hipparcos_overview > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/payload > https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/data-reductions > > And you still don't know, and never will. Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate because of its finite height. Any telescope will have to be perfectly aligned to some cosmic object if its readings are to be meaningful. Of course Hipparcos needed reference stars...and lots of them....so that appropriate corrections could be made to the raw data. I already gave you the quote that said the GR prediction was assumed correct when analyzing the data. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 02:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okh7ct$a9a$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425232 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 15/07/17 19:04, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> 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 >> 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, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate >because of its finite height. Any telescope will have to be perfectly >aligned to some cosmic object if its readings are to be meaningful. Of >course Hipparcos needed reference stars...and lots of them....so that >appropriate corrections could be made to the raw data. No, Ralph. It is obvious you didn't read (or understand) Paul's description. It rotates scanning the sky in a narrow strip and the axis of rotation slowly shifts so the next rotation overlaps the first but isn't exactly the same as the first pass. (Hey, John Sefton! Quick!! A precessing spinny thing!!!) As the axis of rotation slowly shifts, eventually the whole sky is covered. As you see, Ralph, the rotational axis is constantly changing, so no need for reference stars. The 8-10 stars being imaged at any particular time are references for each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okjfds$kfe$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425250 |
On 17/07/17 12:28, Michael Moroney wrote "I wish I had stuck with basket weaving. Physics is far too hard for me". --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 09:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okhqe0$mtp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425232 |
Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: > > Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate > because of its finite height. No, I don't know that. Would you elaborate, please? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 09:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okjfjs$kqq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425281 |
On 17/07/17 17:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: >> >> Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate >> because of its finite height. > > No, I don't know that. > Would you elaborate, please? Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at radius x+1 metres. ...and this man used to teach the subject.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 16:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okl5o5$pma$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425402 |
Den 18.07.2017 01.01, skrev HGW...: > On 17/07/17 17:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: >>> >>> Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate >>> because of its finite height. >> >> No, I don't know that. >> Would you elaborate, please? > > Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object > orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at > radius x+1 metres. > ...and this man used to teach the subject.... Oh no, Ralph. You wont escape that easily! Don't pretend you were talking about the orbital period. The challenge was: Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate because of its finite height". Why do you think the altitude of the orbit affects the rotation of the satellite? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okl8rm$3b0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425468 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >Den 18.07.2017 01.01, skrev HGW...: >> Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object >> orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at >> radius x+1 metres. >> ...and this man used to teach the subject.... >Oh no, Ralph. You wont escape that easily! >Don't pretend you were talking about the orbital period. >The challenge was: >Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate >because of its finite height". > Why do you think the altitude of the orbit affects >the rotation of the satellite? Maybe Ralph Rabbidge borrowed some bad ideas from Archimedes Plutonium and is using Archie's rewritten Maxwell's Equations that adds some sort of spin term to gravity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oklmm3$g2m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425473 |
Den 18.07.2017 17.18, skrev Michael Moroney: > "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: > >> Den 18.07.2017 01.01, skrev HGW...: > >>> Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object >>> orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at >>> radius x+1 metres. >>> ...and this man used to teach the subject.... > >> Oh no, Ralph. You wont escape that easily! >> Don't pretend you were talking about the orbital period. > >> The challenge was: >> Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate >> because of its finite height". >> Why do you think the altitude of the orbit affects >> the rotation of the satellite? > > Maybe Ralph Rabbidge borrowed some bad ideas from Archimedes > Plutonium and is using Archie's rewritten Maxwell's Equations that > adds some sort of spin term to gravity? > My guess is that Ralph thinks "the natural rotation" of a satellite is one rotation per orbit. That will be true for most satellites of obvious reasons, but that is because they are controlled to do so, not because it is 'natural'. His following statement is hilarious (and revealing): Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge wrote: "The larger the orbit, the smaller the natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it aligned to reference stars." The larger the orbit, the less fuel is needed to prevent the satellite from rotating. :-D (To stay on a target a telescope in orbit will however have to "use fuel" (energy) to compensate for the aberration. HST used reaction wheels.) Hipparcos didn't have to "use fuel" to keep rotating, even if it had to use energy to change the spin axis. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 09:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okm6j4$vlg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425468 |
On 19/07/17 00:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.07.2017 01.01, skrev HGW...: >> On 17/07/17 17:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: >>>> >>>> Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate >>>> because of its finite height. >>> >>> No, I don't know that. >>> Would you elaborate, please? >> >> Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object >> orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at >> radius x+1 metres. >> ...and this man used to teach the subject.... > > Oh no, Henry. You wont escape that easily! > Don't pretend you were talking about the orbital period. Are you under the impression that Hipparcos does not have an orbit period? Oh dear, this is becoming quite hilarious! > The challenge was: > Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate > because of its finite height". > Why do you think the altitude of the orbit affects > the rotation of the satellite? Oh dear! I cannot believe I am reading this...from a self proclaimed assistant professor of physics......(we call them 'tutors' here....kind of third rate academics) Paul, I'll give you a chance to redeem your credibility. Send a metre rod into orbit and align it vertically relative to point A. When it returns to point A, do you think it will still be vertical? Ask little mickey for assistance if that is too hard..... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 15:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oknlf6$u4n$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425544 |
Den 19.07.2017 01.45, skrev HGW...: > On 19/07/17 00:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 18.07.2017 01.01, skrev HGW...: >>> On 17/07/17 17:53, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 17.07.2017 00.40, skrev HGW...: >>>>> >>>>> Paul, as you probably know, anything in orbit will naturally rotate >>>>> because of its finite height. >>>> >>>> No, I don't know that. >>>> Would you elaborate, please? >>> >>> Oh dear! Paul doesn't know basic physics. He thinks that an object >>> orbiting at radius x metres has the same period as one orbiting at >>> radius x+1 metres. >>> ...and this man used to teach the subject.... >> >> Oh no, Henry. You wont escape that easily! >> Don't pretend you were talking about the orbital period. > > Are you under the impression that Hipparcos does not have an orbit > period? Oh dear, this is becoming quite hilarious! > >> The challenge was: >> Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate >> because of its finite height". >> Why do you think the altitude of the orbit affects >> the rotation of the satellite? > > Oh dear! I cannot believe I am reading this...from a self proclaimed > assistant professor of physics......(we call them 'tutors' here....kind > of third rate academics) Is there any particular reason why you won't answer? Realized you blunder? :-D The challenge is still: Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate because of its finite height". And I could add: Please explain the meaning of the statement: "The larger the orbit, the smaller the natural rotation of the object." > Paul, I'll give you a chance to redeem your credibility. Send a metre > rod into orbit and align it vertically relative to point A. When it > returns to point A, do you think it will still be vertical? (Wondering: is it really possible that Ralph still haven't got the point, or has he realized his blunder and is desperately trying to divert the attention from it by asking poorly defined questions?) But OK. I suppose the alignment means that the rod is not rotating, and that the point A is at the ground in the orbital plane. If the point A is one of the poles, the answer is yes, else the answer is no. > > Ask little mickey for assistance if that is too hard..... > I have answered you question, Will you answer mine, or will you keep fleeing? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 08:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okonp6$11is$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425596 |
On 19/07/17 23:05, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 19.07.2017 01.45, skrev HGW...: > But OK. > I suppose the alignment means that the rod is not rotating, > and that the point A is at the ground in the orbital plane. > > If the point A is one of the poles, the answer is yes, > else the answer is no. > >> >> Ask little mickey for assistance if that is too hard..... >> > > I have answered you question, > Will you answer mine, or will you keep fleeing? You have not answered my question. You apparently don't even know why the question exists. Paul, send two metal balls into orbit, one at x metres and the other at x+2 metres, where x+1 is the geo-synchronous orbit. Align them vertically over a particular point. Do they remain vertically aligned? No of course not! Why not, Paul? Now, if they are connected by a rigid massless rod, the process becomes a little more complicated because they are not free to move as they normally would. The outer one's orbit speed is slower than the inner one so the rod will rotate asymptotically until both are traveling in the x+1 orbit, parallel to the ground, where they would remain if they were infinitesimally thin. Replace the balls with a 2m diameter wheel. It will be seen to rotate relative to the ground...but will it rotate by more than, less than or exactly 1 revolution per orbit? Can you see the problem now, Paul? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 22:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <okr3e8$7b2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #425632 |
Den 20.07.2017 00.51, skrev HGW...: > > Paul, send two metal balls into orbit, one at x metres and the other at > x+2 metres, where x+1 is the geo-synchronous orbit. Align them > vertically over a particular point. Do they remain vertically aligned? > No of course not! Why not, Paul? > > Now, if they are connected by a rigid massless rod, the process becomes > a little more complicated because they are not free to move as they > normally would. The outer one's orbit speed is slower than the inner one > so the rod will rotate asymptotically until both are traveling in the > x+1 orbit, parallel to the ground, where they would remain if they were > infinitesimally thin. The rod will keep rotating with the retrograde rotation you initially gave it. > Replace the balls with a 2m diameter wheel. It will be seen to rotate > relative to the ground...but will it rotate by more than, less than or > exactly 1 revolution per orbit? Can you see the problem now, Paul? > What problem? The wheel will keep rotating with the rotation it was given by the space vehicle that put it in orbit. If the initial rotation is zero, it will not start a retrograde rotation because "the top is moving too fast and the bottom is moving too slow". Tidal forces are internal, there is no external torque acting on the wheel which can change its angular momentum. (Given million of years the deformation caused by the tidal forces may lead to tidal lock, but this is utterly irrelevant for man made satellites.) You have fled the challenge by irrelevant babble. The challenge is still: Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate because of its finite height". And please explain the meaning of the statement: "The larger the orbit, the smaller the natural rotation of the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it aligned to reference stars." Are you seriously claiming that if you have a non-rotating object in orbit, you have to "use fuel" to keep it from its "natural retrograde rotation"? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 14:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oks01p$58n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425709 |
On 21/07/17 06:22, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 20.07.2017 00.51, skrev HGW...: >> >> Paul, send two metal balls into orbit, one at x metres and the other >> at x+2 metres, where x+1 is the geo-synchronous orbit. Align them >> vertically over a particular point. Do they remain vertically aligned? >> No of course not! Why not, Paul? >> >> Now, if they are connected by a rigid massless rod, the process >> becomes a little more complicated because they are not free to move as >> they normally would. The outer one's orbit speed is slower than the >> inner one so the rod will rotate asymptotically until both are >> traveling in the x+1 orbit, parallel to the ground, where they would >> remain if they were infinitesimally thin. > > The rod will keep rotating with the retrograde rotation > you initially gave it. It was not given any rotation. Where did you get that idea? It is set vertically above a certain point on the ground. >> Replace the balls with a 2m diameter wheel. It will be seen to rotate >> relative to the ground...but will it rotate by more than, less than or >> exactly 1 revolution per orbit? Can you see the problem now, Paul? >> > > What problem? > The wheel will keep rotating with the rotation it was given > by the space vehicle that put it in orbit. If the initial > rotation is zero, it will not start a retrograde rotation > because "the top is moving too fast and the bottom is > moving too slow". Tidal forces are internal, there is > no external torque acting on the wheel which can change > its angular momentum. Gravitational force acts on every unit mass in each half. It is insufficient to keep the top half moving at the speed of the wheel's centre. Every atom will try to move tangentially and the tangents on on side will be directed differently from those on the other because of the (notably small) curvature of the orbit.. Maybe the forces balance in the case of a homogeneous object but how about one that is not symmetrical? The wheel is not given any initial rotation. > (Given million of years the deformation caused by > the tidal forces may lead to tidal lock, but this is > utterly irrelevant for man made satellites.) Don't try to change the subject... > You have fled the challenge by irrelevant babble. You still refuse to understand the problem. Maybe some actual figures might help. Let a ball be sent into and orbit 10000 kms above the Earth's centre. Let another be sent into a 20000 km orbit in the same plane. As you should know, if the bottom one is traveling at v, the top one will be traveling at v/sqrt2. Now, at some point in time, when the top one is vertically above the bottom one, let the two be instantly joined by a (massless) rod (of infinite strength). What do you think will happen, Paul? > The challenge is still: > Please explain why "anything in orbit will naturally rotate > because of its finite height". > > And please explain the meaning of the statement: > "The larger the orbit, the smaller the natural rotation of > the object and the lesser the fuel needed to keep it > aligned to reference stars." > > Are you seriously claiming that if you have a non-rotating > object in orbit, you have to "use fuel" to keep it from > its "natural retrograde rotation"? I will await your answer to the above before I reply. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web