Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430206 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 01:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 11:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 10:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 13:31 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 06:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 19:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 19:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:01 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:06 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 02:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-04 21:03 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 13:58 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-05 06:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 21:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:55 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 11:20 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-08 19:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 14:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 16:00 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-09 19:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 12:27 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 12:30 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-07 18:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 15:57 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-06 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-06 12:00 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:36 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 13:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 11:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 11:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 20:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 17:48 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 01:01 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 10:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 10:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 21:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 15:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 01:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-08 16:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 06:39 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-09 07:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 18:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-09 17:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:54 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 13:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 16:32 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:14 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 11:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 21:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 20:38 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 12:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-12 14:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-13 17:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-14 15:29 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-15 03:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-10 06:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 16:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:07 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-11 16:52 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 10:30 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 19:57 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 13:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:23 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:27 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 07:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 05:47 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 15:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 21:04 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-13 01:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 14:16 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-12 18:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 00:17 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 09:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 15:10 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 01:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 12:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 23:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:35 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-14 02:16 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-14 21:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 08:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-15 10:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:16 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:02 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 18:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 07:48 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-19 08:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:12 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 13:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 18:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 20:09 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 09:21 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 16:59 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 09:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 18:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 20:31 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 23:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-16 04:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 09:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-15 21:20 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-16 06:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-17 09:24 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-17 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:39 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:34 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-10 23:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:44 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-12 10:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:52 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 03:54 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 21:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-13 22:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 17:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 09:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 21:25 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 00:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 22:27 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:17 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:46 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 12:02 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 16:19 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:21 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 19:31 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 06:29 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 17:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 09:36 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:09 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:00 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:00 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:07 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:04 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 03:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:21 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:40 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 20:26 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:18 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 04:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:05 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-28 20:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 13:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 21:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 09:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 10:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 22:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 02:00 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 06:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 07:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 14:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R. B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 01:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 02:36 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 04:20 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 11:01 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 04:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:11 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 05:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:29 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:47 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 06:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 09:22 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 17:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 03:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:23 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:29 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 05:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 11:42 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 10:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 17:43 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 20:45 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 22:31 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 14:54 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 19:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-05 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 00:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:52 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 16:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 19:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 17:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 21:17 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 16:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 03:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 14:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:48 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 10:26 +1000
Neutrinos (was: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 10:58 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 21:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ookc7l$1e9t$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431012 |
On 9/4/17 5:59 AM, HGW wrote: > On 04/09/17 15:29, Ned Latham wrote: >> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: >>> HGW wrote: >> >> ----snip---- >> >>>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. >>> >>> OPERA did, baloney-boy. >> >> And the result they got was FTL. >> >> Larf. >> >> ----sbip---- > > HAHAHHHAHA! but that was quickly hushed up and the fellows who did the > measuring are now unemployed............ No, they're not. Propaganda-flinger. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <962eb11f-ccbd-4e2c-919b-acd06e6557c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431000 |
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:30:00 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > And the result they got was FTL. > > Larf. > > ----sbip---- You misspelled "Liar" bull-plop boy. > > A charged pion has mass 139.57 MeV > > That's a measure of energy, not mass. Which just goes to show that you are an ignoramus and a dimwit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 11:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoqr0k1.4kg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431028 |
Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > Larf. > > > > ----sbip---- > > You misspelled "Liar" bull-plop boy. Wrong again, moron. I wouldn't misspell your name in a pink fit. > > > A charged pion has mass 139.57 MeV > > > > That's a measure of energy, not mass. > > Which just goes to show that you are an ignoramus and a dimwit. Wrong pronoun, moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c9c833d-1be1-4356-bb13-df6688e677d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431055 |
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Wrong pronoun, Yes, the only pronoun to describe you is "it." > moron. Don't be so hard on yourself, your at least a couple of points above moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ook3cd$usp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431064 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: >> >> Wrong pronoun, > > Yes, the only pronoun to describe you is "it." > >> moron. > > Don't be so hard on yourself, your at least a couple of points above > moron. Uncertain. A couple bellow idiot, for sure. Think again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooke0d$gq3$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #431065 |
The nymshifting troll <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> writes:
>Uncertain. A couple bellow idiot, for sure. Think again.
^^^^^^
Aha! The nymshifting troll actually is He who should Not be Named, a.k.a.
the Spamtard!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ookk88$1roo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431087 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > The nymshifting troll <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> writes: > >>Uncertain. A couple bellow idiot, for sure. Think again. > ^^^^^^ > Aha! The nymshifting troll actually is He who should Not be Named, > a.k.a. the Spamtard!!! "idiot" as a level, not title. I don't insult anybody. I don't know those posters. Why so angry at them?? Keep calm, my friend, and be happy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 14:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoqrbre.8q1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431064 |
Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did, baloney-boy. > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > > > Larf. > > > > > > > > ----sbip---- > > > > > > You misspelled "Liar" bull-plop boy. > > > > Wrong again, moron. I wouldn't misspell your name in a pink fit. > > > > > > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A charged pion has mass 139.57 MeV > > > > > > > > That's a measure of energy, not mass. > > > > > > Which just goes to show that you are an ignoramus and a dimwit. > > > > Wrong pronoun, moron. > > Yes, the only pronoun to describe you is "it." But you just used "you". Pretty fuckin' stupid, ain'cha? > > moron. > > Don't be so hard on yourself, Showing up your pathetic stupidity isn't hard, Gawy. > your That's "you're", moron. Is your subliteracy one of the reasons for your inadequacy as a physicist? I ask because your evasion of the issues makes it plain that physics is not your forté. > at least a couple of points above moron. No you're not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddcb1240-e72b-4937-af08-5e801b171c0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431082 |
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 1:54:28 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > [Abysmally-stupid bull plop] Nothing more need be said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oolt1m$1m33$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431121 |
On 05/09/17 12:13, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 1:54:28 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>>
>> [Abysmally-stupid bull plop]
>
> Nothing more need be said.
>
Let your little god thing say it for you....
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s-Odnbb1CMzFSjPEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #431000 |
On 9/4/17 12:29 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. >> OPERA did > > And the result they got was FTL. No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) faster than light. They corrected that and their ACTUAL result was consistent with c, to within their resolution of a few parts per million. Both MINOS and Super-K also measured neutrino speeds of c, within their resolutions of a few parts per million. All three measurements involve distances of several hundred kilometers and clock synchronization via GPS; all measurements are relative to the ECI coordinates of the GPS. This is an example of good science at work: OPERA had an interesting preliminary result, and the other experiments worked quickly to confirm or deny it. They ended up denying it; the OPERA team found a problem in their equipment, which they fixed and then confirmed the results of the other experiments. All three measurements are consistent with the predictions of SR. Your fantasies of some vast "conspiracy" are just that -- FANTASIES. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoqu1ct.d4i.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431216 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > OPERA did > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > faster than light. No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, asking for help to find a way to deny it. > They corrected that Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > and their ACTUAL result was consistent with c, to within > their resolution of a few parts per million. > > Both MINOS and Super-K also measured neutrino speeds of c, > within their resolutions of a few parts per million. All > three measurements involve distances of several hundred > kilometers and clock synchronization via GPS; all > measurements are relative to the ECI coordinates of the GPS. Which is to say, the coordination of the clocks imposes the assumption of constabt c on the whole procedure. > This is an example of good science at work: Pig's arse. It's an example of invalidity. > OPERA had an interesting preliminary result, and the other > experiments worked quickly to confirm or deny it. They > ended up denying it; As they were set up to di. > the OPERA team found a problem in their equipment, That is about as believeable as the green cheese hypothesis. ----snip---- > Your fantasies of some vast "conspiracy" are just that -- Get your hand off it, Roberts. My opinion is that the problem is the grants system, not some wilful conspiracy. > FANTASIES. You wish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <448fb484-bb9a-4d84-b56e-8b98fa33b844@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431232 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > faster than light. > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > They corrected that > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. Yes. There was an equipment problem. Things like this happen, you know. Do you invent elaborate fantasies every time your kitchen sink get clogged too? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 00:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoqv2kn.rp1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431282 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > > faster than light. > > > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > > > They corrected that > > > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > > Yes. There was an equipment problem. I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision and procedural integrity. > Things like this happen, you know. At CERN? And it took half a bloody year to find it? That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable in an auto repair shop. And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? Get your hand off it. > Do you invent elaborate fantasies every time your kitchen sink > get clogged too? Do you believe every hare-brained excuse that people make up to explain their failures?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 08:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ooouig$10bh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431290 |
On 9/6/17 12:41 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: >>>>>> HGW wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. >>>>>> >>>>>> OPERA did >>>>> >>>>> And the result they got was FTL. >>>> >>>> No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) >>>> faster than light. >>> >>> No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent >>> months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, >>> asking for help to find a way to deny it. >>> >>>> They corrected that >>> >>> Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. >> >> Yes. There was an equipment problem. > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > and procedural integrity. And working with a VERY complex apparatus. > >> Things like this happen, you know. > > At CERN? And it took half a bloody year to find it? That sort of > incompetence would be considered unacceptable in an auto repair > shop. And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? > > Get your hand off it. > >> Do you invent elaborate fantasies every time your kitchen sink >> get clogged too? > > Do you believe every hare-brained excuse that people make up to > explain their failures? So let's see. First you say that the possibility of the loose connection is dismissed because "*everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision and procedural integrity". Then you say that they followed up that result with a broad conspiracy to deceive and falsify data. Some obsession with precision and procedural integrity there! People who are determined to find a conspiracy are guaranteed to succeed. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor0o2p.igk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431334 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > > > > faster than light. > > > > > > > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > > > > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > > > > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > > > > > > > They corrected that > > > > > > > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > > > > > > Yes. There was an equipment problem. > > > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > > and procedural integrity. > > And working with a VERY complex apparatus. Aw boo hoo. > > > Things like this happen, you know. > > > > At CERN? And it took half a bloody year to find it? That sort of > > incompetence would be considered unacceptable in an auto repair > > shop. And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? > > > > Get your hand off it. > > > > > Do you invent elaborate fantasies every time your kitchen sink > > > get clogged too? > > > > Do you believe every hare-brained excuse that people make up to > > explain their failures? > > So let's see. First you say that the possibility of the loose > connection is dismissed because "*everyone* is highly qualified > and utterly obsessed with precision and procedural integrity". ...and it took many months to find. Why do you ignore the fact that *every* connection is some highly trained individual's responsibility? > Then you say that they followed up that result with a broad > conspiracy No, I do not. > to deceive and falsify data. Reset the paramters of the experiment to "correct" the oh so obvious error in the original setup. > Some obsession with precision and procedural integrity there! You can stick your straw man up your arse, Slow Boy. > People who are determined to find a conspiracy are guaranteed > to succeed. What you found, Slow Boy, is your own delusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93ac129e-c970-4907-ac51-7f94378882d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431290 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:41:50 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > > > faster than light. > > > > > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > > > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > > > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > > > > > They corrected that > > > > > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > > > > Yes. There was an equipment problem. > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > and procedural integrity. It happens. Life is not perfect. > > Things like this happen, you know. > > At CERN? Yes. > And it took half a bloody year to find it? Yes. > That sort of > incompetence would be considered unacceptable in an auto repair > shop. No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. > And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? Yes, of course. What's with that veritable MANIA of seeking totally absurd conspiracies where a simple explanation involving human error suffices? > Get your hand off it. > > > Do you invent elaborate fantasies every time your kitchen sink > > get clogged too? > > Do you believe every hare-brained excuse that people make up to > explain their failures? No, you missed the point. It's simply NOT at all unusual to have equipment failure in a very complex system. Why is it so hard to accept this and replace a perfectly sensible explanation with some idiotic conspiracy? Who would benefit from it? How could such conspiracy remain undetected and unpunished? It's ludicrous from get-go. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor0ot6.igk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431373 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > > > > faster than light. > > > > > > > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > > > > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > > > > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > > > > > > > They corrected that > > > > > > > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > > > > > > Yes. There was an equipment problem. > > > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > > and procedural integrity. > > It happens. Life is not perfect. > > > > Things like this happen, you know. > > > > At CERN? > > Yes. > > > And it took half a bloody year to find it? > > Yes. Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been discoberable in the same day that the equipment inspection was ordered. > > That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable > > in an auto repair shop. > > No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to prevent such errors. > > And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? > > Yes, of course. What's with that veritable MANIA of seeking > totally absurd conspiracies where a simple explanation > involving human error suffices? What is it with that mania you dogmatising dimwits have of accusing critics of harbouring conspiracy theories when they're pointing up a perfectly ordinary case of self-deception? ----further insane accusations snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopqu2$p1l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431396 |
On 9/6/17 4:07 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> JanPB wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OPERA did >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the result they got was FTL. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) >>>>>> faster than light. >>>>> >>>>> No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent >>>>> months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, >>>>> asking for help to find a way to deny it. >>>>> >>>>>> They corrected that >>>>> >>>>> Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. >>>> >>>> Yes. There was an equipment problem. >>> >>> I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where >>> *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision >>> and procedural integrity. >> >> It happens. Life is not perfect. >> >>>> Things like this happen, you know. >>> >>> At CERN? >> >> Yes. >> >>> And it took half a bloody year to find it? >> >> Yes. > > Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been > discoberable in the same day that the equipment inspection > was ordered. > >>> That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable >>> in an auto repair shop. >> >> No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. > > Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly > organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to > prevent such errors. Fascinating that you speak as though you were there and were familiar with the procedures. Are you listed on the collaboration manifest? No? Then out of what orifice are you speaking? > >>> And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? >> >> Yes, of course. What's with that veritable MANIA of seeking >> totally absurd conspiracies where a simple explanation >> involving human error suffices? > > What is it with that mania you dogmatising dimwits have of > accusing critics of harbouring conspiracy theories when > they're pointing up a perfectly ordinary case of self-deception? > > ----further insane accusations snipped---- > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 19:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor14jk.mp2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431400 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > > > > > > > > > HGW wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OPERA did > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the result they got was FTL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) > > > > > > > faster than light. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent > > > > > > months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, > > > > > > asking for help to find a way to deny it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > They corrected that > > > > > > > > > > > > Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. There was an equipment problem. > > > > > > > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > > > > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > > > > and procedural integrity. > > > > > > It happens. Life is not perfect. > > > > > > > > Things like this happen, you know. > > > > > > > > At CERN? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > And it took half a bloody year to find it? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been > > discoverable in the same day that the equipment inspection > > was ordered. > > > > > > That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable > > > > in an auto repair shop. > > > > > > No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. > > > > Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly > > organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to > > prevent such errors. > > Fascinating that you speak as though you were there and were That's "are", moron. > familiar with the procedures. Laboratories everywhere have much in common, moron. One of them is careful attention to detail. Another is the assignment of particular areas of responsibility to particular individuals. Another is the institution of failsafe procedures wherever possibke. I'd be interested to see your link to a laboratory somewhere in respected of which it is reliably documented that "loose connections" occurred and took months to find. > Are you listed on the collaboration manifest? Nope. > No? Yes. > Then out of what orifice are you speaking? Try addressing the points made, moron. Your attempts at abuse are pathetic. > > > > And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? > > > > > > Yes, of course. What's with that veritable MANIA of seeking > > > totally absurd conspiracies where a simple explanation > > > involving human error suffices? > > > > What is it with that mania you dogmatising dimwits have of > > accusing critics of harbouring conspiracy theories when > > they're pointing up a perfectly ordinary case of self-deception? > > > > ----further insane accusations snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web