Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #714456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-24 11:46 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-17 02:14 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 299 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-24 11:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 12:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 15:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 16:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 20:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 09:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 20:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-25 11:40 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 11:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Steve <invalidz@example.net> - 2018-11-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-11-26 01:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 10:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Richard Cranium <involidz@example.net> - 2018-11-28 07:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-26 12:54 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 22:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 16:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 14:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 15:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 17:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Oscar <invalidz@example.net> - 2018-11-26 18:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 20:09 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 20:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 03:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 15:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 11:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 15:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-28 01:08 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 21:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 23:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 23:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 23:59 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 08:54 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Buck Futter <invaolidz@example.net> - 2018-11-28 17:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 20:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 23:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 01:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 12:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 23:12 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 00:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 00:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Steve <invaolidz@example.net> - 2018-11-29 18:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:06 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 12:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 14:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 18:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 01:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:06 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 16:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 01:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 19:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 21:59 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 09:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 18:31 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 22:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 03:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 23:31 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 17:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 17:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 19:24 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 21:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 21:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 22:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 22:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 23:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 13:33 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 07:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 09:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-06 12:26 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-06 12:54 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 13:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 19:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 20:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 08:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 15:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 21:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 22:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 22:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 23:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 09:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-12 14:46 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 23:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 23:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 23:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 09:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 09:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 14:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 14:03 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 21:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 16:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:36 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 15:25 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 07:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 17:18 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 09:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 18:05 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 18:40 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 19:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 17:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 19:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 21:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 13:08 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 14:09 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 03:17 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 23:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:14 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:25 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 05:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:31 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 10:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 22:36 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 23:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 02:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 18:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 20:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:04 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 20:04 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 20:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 00:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 06:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 00:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 15:20 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 23:04 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 19:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 14:24 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 21:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2018-12-12 06:07 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-12 19:13 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 12:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 11:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 11:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 14:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 15:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 17:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 07:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-09 14:03 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 14:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 18:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 19:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 20:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 12:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-16 14:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 19:26 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 17:49 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 13:19 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 15:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 16:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 18:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 18:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 19:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 20:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 20:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 22:09 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 00:19 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 03:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 01:01 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 20:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 21:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 11:35 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 15:19 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:27 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 13:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 07:34 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:05 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:15 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:58 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 00:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:03 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:01 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:03 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 10:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 22:15 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:32 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 15:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 01:30 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 07:21 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 00:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:18 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 17:21 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 21:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-16 18:28 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 22:32 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 13:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:11 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 23:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 12:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 12:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 19:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 10:36 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 12:11 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 21:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:30 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 21:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-27 15:24 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 17:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 11:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 21:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-07 10:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 11:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-12 19:55 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 21:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-12 12:56 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 02:14 +0100
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9acee603-ab2c-4a10-a386-bcfdcfaea912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718542 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:18:58 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Your computer is likely powered by a machine that is built on the assumption > that special relativity is correct. Typical science groupy claim. There is no relativity in computer design, you idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 17:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7a2d331-f22c-4477-b3f0-56302015209c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718582 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:53:36 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:18:58 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Your computer is likely powered by a machine that is built on the assumption > > that special relativity is correct. > > Typical science groupy claim. > > There is no relativity in computer design, you idiot Well, Jim, you should probably Google this up before you (again!) make a complete fool of yourself, because you are in for yet another well-deserved clubbing...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 21:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4051553c-d601-46e3-8e81-a053577c4cdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718672 |
Do you still believe in cold steam?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 17:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <259ced1f-facd-4f7e-8a89-f725d4cf89d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718690 |
No response
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <%> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <br3jlf.esb.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #718894 |
On 2018-12-16 6:26 p.m., James McGinn wrote: > No response > did you want one
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 22:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ecdf47c1-0763-c6c3-f12e-d6a7815e1201@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718582 |
James McGinn wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:18:58 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Your computer is likely powered by a machine that is built on the assumption >> that special relativity is correct. > > Typical science groupy claim. Typical crackpot reaction. > There is no relativity in computer design, There is. However, I was not referring to that there. You have to read more carefully. I was talking about a machine that likely *powers* Arindam Banerjee’s computer. Further below in my posting I have described that machine, and how it relates to special relativity (and E₀ = m c²): a nuclear fission reactor, in a nuclear power plant that likely produces the electricity for Arindam Banerjee’s computer (or for charging his computer’s battery). Do you still object to my statement? > you idiot There is a treatment for Tourette syndrome. You should see a doctor. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca97987c-8465-4574-891b-e79d08ba9eaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718840 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:33:01 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > James McGinn wrote: > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:18:58 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Your computer is likely powered by a machine that is built on the assumption > >> that special relativity is correct. > > > > Typical science groupy claim. > > Typical crackpot reaction. > > > There is no relativity in computer design, > > There is. > > However, I was not referring to that there. You have to read more > carefully. I was talking about a machine that likely *powers* Arindam > Banerjee’s computer. Further below in my posting I have described that > machine, and how it relates to special relativity (and E₀ = m c²): a nuclear > fission reactor, in a nuclear power plant that likely produces the > electricity for Arindam Banerjee’s computer (or for charging his computer’s > battery). > > Do you still object to my statement? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 17:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7090805-0f7c-4d12-9644-7ff02667fbe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718542 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> Gravity acts on mass. > >>>>>> Not only, in a manner of speaking. > >>>>> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. > >>>> > >>>> As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an > >>>> *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses > >>>> *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with > >>>> *light* (mass *zero*). > >>> > >>> Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. > >> > >> But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical > >> objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep > >> telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. > > > > It may be incomplete, but it is not bullshit like spacetime and general relativity, > > That is only your ignorant opinion which is therefore completely worthless. It is my opinion, but as Pentcho Valev regularly shows, I am not alone in holding this opinion. I acknnowledge that the e=mcc=hv scoundrels rule. Which is why the physics world is in a shit state. - snip - Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <41bd4a8a-a331-36f1-b978-6501c960b747@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718892 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical >>>> objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep >>>> telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. >>> >>> It may be incomplete, but it is not bullshit like spacetime and general relativity, >> >> That is only your ignorant opinion which is therefore completely worthless. > > It is my opinion, but as Pentcho Valev regularly shows, I am not alone in holding this opinion. Indeed, it is not just you; there are more people around here you are probably mentally ill; Pentcho Valev being probably the craziest of them, completely impervious to any argument and facts. But we who are interested in the real science are not allowing you nut cases to turn this scientific newsgroup into your asylum. Give it up while you still have some brain cells left, and for a change first *read* about what you are intending to talk about. This way not only you will have the chance to learn, but also you will spare everybody your embarrassing yourself. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 23:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3422f30d-9fa8-4d91-b1e3-1a33d58543eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717835 |
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> Gravity acts on mass. > >>>> Not only, in a manner of speaking. > >>> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. > >> > >> As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an > >> *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses > >> *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with > >> *light* (mass *zero*). > > > > Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. > > But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical > objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep > telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. There is no reason for me to believe a word of what you say, provided you verify that with experiment. I have no use for opinion. > > NG is not the only case of such a theory: > > Newtonian mechanics (NM) as a whole produces wrong results for fast relative > motion; special relativity (SR) does not, it generalizes that and reduces to > NM when speeds are low. [I have mathematically proved that /ad nauseam/ in > sci.physics.relativity.] SR is totally rubbish. It will be absolutely demolished when we make ships that will travel faster than light. As shown in my video films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics > NG and SR are incomplete because they does not apply to situations where > energy–momentum densities are high; general relativity (GR) does, it > generalizes that aspect, and reduces to SR when energy–density is low or the > difference in energy–density is negligible (i.e. locally). [I might prove > that at some later point; I presume it can already be found online.] GR is rubbish as it is based upon fraud. Light does not bend with gravity. There is no such nonsense as spacetime. There is no warping of space. GR was "proved" when an optical effect was used to demonstrate the bending of starlight with solar gravity. What a hoax. The greatest in science, no doubt, and the most successful one too. Of course, both SR and GR are merely theories, conjectures, imaginations fluffed up to gigantic proportions by the corrupt establishments to bamboozle the public, steal their money. > Classical mechanics (NM, SR, GR) is incomplete as that it cannot explain > subatomic processes properly; quantum mechanics (QM) can. Combining QM with > SR produces quantum electrodynamics (QED), which can be applied to matter > particles as well as light particles. There is no such thing as light particles. Light is an electromagnetic travelling wave, using aether (aum) as the medium for its transport. Classical mechanics is just fine for interstellar travel. We can accelerate indefinitely, gain unlimited speed, say ten times that of light, with classical mechanics when we use internal force. As I have shown in my video films. > > QM so far is incomplete as it cannot explain gravity on subatomic scales. > A theory of quantum gravity (QG) is needed, and looked for. More waste of time and money is proposed above. More frauds to be let loose upon the population. Far better for any decent soul, to thoroughly study my video films, my online articles in useent, and revise the whole of physics as per the insights and discoveries presented in those films. > >> For a more complete (note that I am NOT saying “complete”) description you > >> must use general relativity (since 1915). > > > > That is rubbish. > > No, it is not. You are just ignorant and incompetent (in this field), and > *too* ignorant and incompetent to realize that you are: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect> GR is rubbish, it is criminal fraud. > > > Once again, answer whether the optical lensing of the sun > > due to its atmosphere was taken, or not taken, to declare > > the correctness of general relativity from the solar eclipse experiment? > See below. Evasion here. > >> And it is very simple: Geodesics, the locally shortest paths, are *curved* > >> lines in a *curved* space. > > > > So what. The Earth is a sphere. We cannot go through it so we go over it, > > More like _along_ it(s surface). Not necessarily. We can tunnel, and in due course go up in a spacecraft and come down where we choose. > > and that line is a curve. We take the shortest curve as a general rule. > > The same is true for spacetime, as all observation shows. In your words, > “we cannot go through spacetime so we go over/along it, and that line is a > curve”. Yes but this has nothing to do with the warping of two dimensional space. It is a matter of engineering and convenience. It has nothing to do with GR. To pretend is has, is the same sort of fraud that says that solar gravity bends starlight. One may as well say that water bends a stick dipped into it. > > > Airplanes that want to get in the fastest way > >> from one point on Earth to another do not fly in straight lines, but on a > >> curved line (as seen from orbit), because the Earth’s surface is *curved*: > > > > Correct. So? > > So you cannot pick and choose. You cannot apply the concepts of geometry to > this situation and *neglect* it for space(time). Such an approach produces > wrong results that are NOT observed, on top of the inner logical > inconsistency of your argument. What utter, total, complete rubbish. You dopey e=mcc wallahs surely have shit for brains. Get this, our travelling over the curved surface of the Earth has nothing to do with the warping of space due to gravity. > > Have you watched the video? If no, why not? What video? > > >> Like everything else on which *no* force acts, light follows trajectories > >> that are described by the geodesics of the (mathematical) space in which it > >> moves. > > > > No, light travels straight. > > In travels on a trajectory described by a geodesic in space(time). But in > curved space(time) geodesics are curved lines: There are no curved lines for light travel in space. Light travels straight. If it appears to curve that is because of optical effects such as refraction, or the movement of the platform of measurement, usually the Earth. > > > It appears to go on a curve simply because the reference frame (usually the Earth) > > is moving in space; or […] > > No. The observation is the same from every vantage point, in all > directions. We have been having probes in outer space for more than > 50 years now, you know. Maybe you have probes in space, but that is far from saying that you have used them to "prove" the validity of GR. It is an obvious fact that the optical lensing of the Sun was used to "prove" GR. It is an obvious fact that the analysis of the MMI experiment was bungles. With such frauds and bunglers in charge, there is no way anything they say can be believed. > > >> trajectories of light are *curved* lines in the presence of (non-zero) mass( > >> density), which *is* equivalent to energy( density). > > > > There is no spacetime, > > (Repeatedly) claiming something does not make it true. All observations, > all measurements, are *consistent* *to 18 decimal places* (the strain > predicted, and produced by gravitational waves) with the assumption that > spacetime exists, is curved in the presence of, and corresponding to, > the energy−momentum density in it, and is dynamic. Huh! You are the one making assertive claims, on no experimental basis, by repetition. I am the one providing the ways the bungling has been done. Far from accepting the bungling and fraud, you are continuing them on behalf of the frauds and bunglers. Far from realising the worth of my new disoveries, you are being a party to ignoring them. There is no way anything you say can be believed. All you are doing is hand-waving in the name of science. The world has to realise that the modern physicist has the veracity of any politician. They are all to get public funds. Cut off public funds for their e=mcc=hv rubbish, and then see how fast their whole corrupt edifice will vanish. > If you can show one example where that is not so, then people will be > willing to listen and consider your alternative idea (not that this would > already make it a theory). So far you have not been able to, so you are > just a loudmouth and people rightfully laugh at your ignorance. We all know that the thugs you support run the physics show, this racket, and thus have all the funds. No one with self-interest in mind will oppose them. Their lot will victimise any supporter of mine, so no one will support my ideas at this stage unless he or she has real courage - which is lacking. This I allow. Hitler and Nazis ruled for some years, and the British Raj for a lot more. Doesn't mean their racist ideas were correct. The aristocrats everywhere ruled for centuries. No one opposed them while they were on top, but when they were down all rose up to destroy their supremacy. Aristotle's theories lasted for centuries, and are back in Einsteinian garb these days. Same situation with the wrong e=mcc=hv physics, which should never have happened. But it does rule for the present. It will be gone in due course. Sooner the better. > > End of story. Yes, for the e=mcc=hv story so far as I am concerned. My works based upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) have been analysed and passed as acceptable by many Indian scientists and engineers, mainly from my alma mater IIT Kharagpur. > > >>>>> Light Has no mass, > >>>> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation > >>>> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we > >>>> live. > >>> You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them. > >> > >> Look at this: > >> > 4>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG> Why point to Hubble? First clarify whether or not the atmosphere around the Sun was taken into account while "proving" GR from the displacement of stellar positions due to the solar eclipse. Give a yes/no answer. I know you cannot give a yes, for there are no documents from the period to show that indeed they did take the solar atmosphere into account. A no means that an optical effect was used to show a gravitational effect. > > > > First tell us > > There is no “us” in that regard. You are *alone* in your delusions > (together with your *few* fellow crackpots). There is an us. The whole world can listen to this, as this is online. Whether I am right or wrong is ultimately for the whole world to decide. You are sounding shrill, pointy-eared donkey. > > whether or not the atmospher of the Sun was taken into account to "prove" > > Einstein's general relativity. > > Probably. Now this is evasion supreme! Where is the documentary proof that the Sun's atmosphere was taken into account to "prove" GR? There is NO MENTION anywhere of the Sun's atmosphere being taken into account. From all calculations, the Sun was taken as a point mass. But the Sun does have an atmosphere, which causes refraction effects, bending of light, and so acts as an OPTICAL lens. > But the atmosphere does not matter as the bended light is not > even grazing the atmosphere. That may have been the earlier thought (not mentioned) when "proving" GR. But we now know that the Sun indeed has an atmosphere around it. The moon blocks the Sun but not the atmospher around it. It is through that atmosphere the starlight must pass through to get to Earth. It is that atmosphere which bends the light causing an optical lensing effect. Which, as the greatest and most successful hoax of all time, is called gravitational lensing to prove GR. > > > Let us get that straight. The we shall consider > > See above. You are suffering from delusions of grandeur. ad hom, heh-heh. Loser. > > > why the Sun has a strong magnetic field if its insides are extremely hot. > > Light (photons) is electrically *neutral*, so it is NOT affected by electric > or magnetic fields. And that is good so. Irrelevant. > > Like every school child knows, magnetic fields are produced by moving > electric charges. This is the same with and within the Sun. I suppose you mean current. Yes there is a strong steady current within the Sun creating the strong steady magnetic field. This strong current has to come from a very cold interior supporting superconducting currents that create the magnetic field. Now if the inside of the Sun is very cold, there can be no fusion within. So e=mcc is as rubbish as ever to predict the reason for the Sun's heat. So, donkey, get this: magnetic field, superconducting current, cold core, no fusion for e from mcc. We have instead e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain the Sun's heat at the surface, resulting from gravity, electrical forces, etc. There is nothing radioactive about the Sun, thus. Which means, space travel for humans will be safe. > > > Do not evade this question, if you wish to retain any respectability. > > Oh the hubris. How many semesters have you studied *physics* again? Enough to get a honours degree in engineering from India's top institution. Look here, donkey, get this into your head - I am a genius of the order of Newton and da Vinci. Had this world not been run by racist bigots like you, I would have got the honours and attention I deserve long ago. Scum like you are the very worst. You are the ones who out of personal or group self-interest strangle the development of science when new ideas do not fit your biases. > > > Did or did not the Einsteinians > > There are no "Einsteinians". You are delusional. Of course there are Eisnteinians. All people with money and power are such. If you are not one, you won't be looked at by anyone in the ruling establishments. It is a religion, now. > > take the optical lensing due to the Sun's atmosphere into account when > > "proving" general relativity using the solar eclipse? > > See above. Evasion. We have seen above, and the answer I have given above. > > And like every other crackpot, you think that you can pick and choose facts: > accept those that are to your liking, and ignore those that are not. That is not what I do. That is why you pseudo-scientists do. You ignore the bungles made in the MMI expt which I have pointed out numerous times. You practice fraud as I have shown above. This > is NOT how science works. Also, (natural) sciences are NOT about proof, > because every (natural) scientist knows that this is not possible: It is > about observational falsification and confirmation of theories (about > nature) instead. (Do not confuse the wording for the general public with > the scientific terminology and approach.) You e=mcc wallahs have totally corrupted science. You have turned it into a religion. My work is directed to undoing the damage. > > The 1919 observation is *by far* not the only evidence for general > relativity. I have already told you three others. As *examples*. It is a fraud, as the optical lensing was used to prove a false theory. This shows the calibre of the people concerned. Since they started with fraud, they can only build upon it to further confuse the people, > > And you cannot have general relativity without special relativity. As there > are dozens of examples that confirm general relativity (GPS being among > them, every nanosecond), there are literally a gazillion examples that > confirm special relativity. Not in the least. GPS is the one thing where relativistic equations are used and that is the one thing going for it, apparently. But only apparently. GPS equations based upon relativity have an Earth that is motionless in space, and the space is twisted around it in the mathematical sense, related to conformal mapping. In short, it is a case of two wrongs making a right. The Earth is held still, while it is moving - one wrong. Then another wrong - the equations that are wrong. Two wrongs making a right. Actually this is a good example of the way conformal mapping works. They hold the speed of light constant, and the Earth still, to get the results. But the MMI expt shows that the speed of light varies with the emitter when the Earth is moving. And the Earth is moving around the Sun, as found by star positions. I do not think you will follow the above reasoning, donkey, but never mind. In due course they will make faster than light ships using my new motors that will accelerate indefinitely without ejecting mass in outer space, and go beyond the speed of light. After that, all this e=mcc=hv stuff will be well and truly buried. > > A "small" part of it, 65 billion (6.5 × 10¹⁰) solar neutrinos, produced by > stellar nuclear fusion in the Sun, *due to the mass–energy equivalence* > that you deny in blissful ignorance, are passing through *every square > centimetre* of your skin *every second*. *Confirmed* by observation. What rubbish. The interior of the Sun is very cold. There is no nuclear fusion in the Sun. When will such total nonsense end? > > Then there are nuclear power plants that are based on nuclear *fission*. > Where do you think does the energy come from that, unfortunately, probably > still powers your computer, too? Nuclear fission happens when atoms break up, creating motion, that creates heat. It has nothing to do with relativity nonsense. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4dcbd19-cd7c-4abf-838a-4ef0d50f6722@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718951 |
No. Light path is parabolic. There is no evidence for straight. God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 12:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c56ec01a-e1e9-4882-ade4-3bf95fc84a3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #719023 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:27:25 AM UTC+11, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > No. Light path is parabolic. > There is no evidence for straight. > > God creates gravity. > > Mitchell Raemsch Ask God why He created someone like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <255e4b5c-97de-23ab-9f75-8d09c1f755df@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718951 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. >> >> But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical >> objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep >> telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. > > There is no reason for me to believe a word of what you say, provided you verify that with experiment. I have no use for opinion. Before I waste more time, please clarify: Did you actually you mean to say that even if I provide experimental evidence for what I am saying that you are not going to accept it? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f61ee6ec-6367-4025-9fc7-1d10a55798fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #719055 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:42:11 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. > >> > >> But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical > >> objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep > >> telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. > > > > There is no reason for me to believe a word of what you say, provided you verify that with experiment. I have no use for opinion. > > Before I waste more time, please clarify: > > Did you actually you mean to say that even if I provide experimental > evidence for what I am saying that you are not going to accept it? You do not produce any evidence. All you do is to assert your dogma. Your experiments are rubbish, that are known and approved. I debunked the MMI and the solar eclipse experiment. That means, both SR and GR are down the drain. Then I have proved that Lorenz force does not have a reaction. I have shown how to make motors for unlimited speeds. I have shown how the entire field of physics needs revision based upon e=mcc getting replaced by e=0.5mVVN)N-k). It is our misfortune that the physics world is run by scoundrels, imbeciles, etc. fooling the fatheads, and squeezing the politicians for money. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e1635b1-841e-4423-88e0-bd6bd16985e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716455 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Gravity acts on mass. Light Has no mass, it is a travelling me wave. It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive indices. It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth. > > Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee The math of light mass is C... not C squared Roy Masters. Einstein's myth is the real God's Mind for mathematical science. Mitchell Remsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 20:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17cd0bdd-ed69-4306-838f-07638900a247@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716514 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:28:58 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Gravity acts on mass. Light Has no mass, it is a travelling me wave. It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive indices. It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth. > > > > Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > The math of light mass is C... not C squared Roy Masters. Einstein's myth is the real God's Mind for mathematical science. Light is the lightest of masses... The meaning of light is in its name. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 20:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b48e45e-26db-4e95-b902-e1faeb1012c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716514 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > The math of light mass is C... No, the math of light is c... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/c.html "A lower-case c has been consistently used to denote the speed of light in textbooks on relativity almost without exception since such books started to be written. For example, the notation was used in the earliest books on relativity by Lorentz (1909), Carmichael (1913), Silberstein (1914), Cunningham (1915), and Tolman (1917)... Einstein's notation changed suddenly in 1907 in a paper for the Journal Jahrbuch der Radioaktivity und Elektronik. There he used the lower case c, and his most famous equation E = mc2 came into being." Your stubbornness about this is just more evidence of your severe lack of science knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0e0f04cf-23b1-4c6a-81e9-c00b88306cf0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716518 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The math of light mass is C... > > No, the math of light is c... The math of light's energy density is C. God creates gravity... everything has a density. Mitchell Raemsch >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-05 20:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a35e90de-e4ab-434b-978f-4f583e3dd5eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716880 |
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 7:34:03 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > The math of light mass is C... > > > > No, the math of light is c... > > The math of light's energy density is C. > God creates gravity... everything has a density. > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > > Mitch, you remain as unteachable any anyone I have ever run across here, but you are certainly not alone!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c86f59c-1cb7-482e-91e7-fe1902e00f0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716883 |
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 8:02:54 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 7:34:03 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > The math of light mass is C... > > > > > > No, the math of light is c... > > > > The math of light's energy density is C. > > God creates gravity... everything has a density. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > > > > > > Mitch, you remain as unteachable any anyone I have ever run across here, but you are certainly not alone! Go back to your teacher PNUT. You need education... I don't... God creates gravity... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web