Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #560106 > unrolled thread

The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
              EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:15 -0800
                Re: EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:01 -0800
              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
                        'slunars noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:46 -0700
                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
                          a. precession noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:29 -0700
                            a.p noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:14 -0700
                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
                      herr doktor-professor e. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:30 -0700
                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
                                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
                                              Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
                                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
                                                Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
                                                  Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:26 -0700
                                                    Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
                                                      Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
                                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
                                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:51 -0700
                                                          Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
                                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
                                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000
                                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
                                        Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
                            Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:57 -0700
                              query noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#563967

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:FaSdnayrLeIwlXLLnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com...

|   Wrong again, Ralph. GR is the only theory to correctly predict the
|   correct value for the precession of perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Sure,  50 years after.
A truly great prophecy of truly great guru.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563959

HGW <HGW@home.com> writes:

>On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@...> writes:

>> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd
>> rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too
>> chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!"  And you wouldn't know what to do with
>> the data even if you did have it.

>Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.

Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers 
confounded.

Explain that, Ralph.  Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos",
explain it in Newtonian mechanics.

You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that 
$250.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563963

On 21/03/16 08:11, Michael Moron-y wrote:
> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes:

>
>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.
>
> Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers
> confounded.

It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed.

> Explain that, Henry.  Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos",
> explain it in Newtonian mechanics.
>
> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that
> $250.

I don't need to.
The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...and there are 
plenty of other reasons why Einstein's relativity is pure nonsense from 
start to finish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563971

On 3/20/16 4:20 PM, HGW wrote:
> It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed.


   Try not to be so stooopid, Ralph. Einstein did not believe 43 seconds
   of arc per orbit.  Like I said, try not to be so stooopid.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564013

On 21/03/16 08:42, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/20/16 4:20 PM, HGW wrote:
>> It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed.
>
>
>    Try not to be so stooopid, Henry. Einstein did not believe 43 seconds
>    of arc per orbit.  Like I said, try not to be so stooopid.

Of course he did.....then he whacked a 2 in his equations to make it 
fit...Nobody knew the difference.....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564120

On 3/20/16 8:15 PM, HGW wrote:
> Of course he did.....then he whacked a 2 in his equations to make it
> fit...Nobody knew the difference.....


   Ralph, you should read the historical literature concerning that
   factor of two to give it context. You are a bad at Pentcho when taking
   stuff out of context.  :-o



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564000

HGW <hw@...> writes:

>On 21/03/16 08:11, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes:

>>> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian.
>>
>> Except for that 43 seconds of arc per century that kept astronomers
>> confounded.

>It was not 43 seconds of arc per orbit, as Einstein believed.

Einstein never believed that, Ralph.  It was well known at the time
the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century.

>> Explain that, Henry.  Don't just wave your hands and say "it's chaos",

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! I told you not to edit my quotes, Ralph. Do I
have to punish you now?

>> explain it in Newtonian mechanics.
>>
>> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire off that
>> $250.

>I don't need to.

Nope. You don't need to.  You'll instead choose to bury your head in
the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is wrong!!"
and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But nobody is
going to force you to put up and support your claim rather than raving.

Just think, Ralph.  You could be just $250 from proving Einstein wrong!
Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness?

>The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...

It's not "obvious", Ralph, until we see the data.  Why won't you spring
for it?  Of course, you have no idea what to do with the data even if
you did have it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564423

On 21/03/16 10:51, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@...> writes:

>
> Einstein never believed that, Henry.  It was well known at the time
> the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century.
>
>>> Explain that, Henry.  Don't just wave your hands and say "it's
>>> chaos",
>
> Henry George Wilson! I told you not to edit my quotes, Henry. Do I
> have to punish you now?
>
>>> explain it in Newtonian mechanics.
>>>
>>> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire
>>> off that $250.
>
>> I don't need to.
>
> Nope. You don't need to.  You'll instead choose to bury your head in
> the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is
> wrong!!" and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But
> nobody is going to force you to put up and support your claim rather
> than raving.
>
> Just think, Henry.  You could be just $250 from proving Einstein
> wrong! Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness?

I have already proved Einstein wrong and it cost me nothing.

>> The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...
>
> It's not "obvious", Henry, until we see the data.

It is obvious to anyone except an indoctrinated dingleberry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564660

since an electron hath mass,
it probably would precess in its orbit,
if it would effect the other electrons' orbits per se

> I have already proved Einstein wrong and it cost me nothing.
> 
> >> The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...
> >
> > It's not "obvious", Henry, until we see the data.
> 
> It is obvious to anyone except an indoctrinated dingleberry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564721

HGW <HGW@home.com> writes:

>On 21/03/16 10:51, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@...> writes:

>>
>> Einstein never believed that, Henry.  It was well known at the time
>> the anomaly was 43 arc seconds per century.
>>
>>>> Explain that, Henry.  Don't just wave your hands and say "it's
>>>> chaos",
>>
>> Henry George Wilson! I told you not to edit my quotes, Henry. Do I
>> have to punish you now?

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge!  Ralph, you are really, really stupid, aren't you,
Ralph! Mr. Rabbidge, I explained to you long ago, Ralph Rabbidge, not to
muck with my posts, Ralph, and not to change what I wrote, Mr. Rabbidge.
You did know, Ralph, what I would do since you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge)
messed with my quotes in the very post where I warned you, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge, not to do so, Ralph.  Ralph Rabbidge, I know that you have some
weird hangup, Ralph, about people using your real name, Ralph, which is
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not Henry George Wilson, nor is it Henry M. Wilson
which is the name you used on your forged photoshopped diploma, Ralph.

So Ralph, if you don't like people using your name (Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge), why do you like to provoke me into making posts like this,
Ralph? Ralph, are you really that stooopid, Ralph? Or are you sadistic,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?


>>>> explain it in Newtonian mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> You have the data you need waiting for you, you just have to fire
>>>> off that $250.
>>
>>> I don't need to.
>>
>> Nope. You don't need to.  You'll instead choose to bury your head in
>> the sand, screaming "The data doesn't exist!", "Relativity is
>> wrong!!" and "the orbit is too chaotic!!" like the kook you are. But
>> nobody is going to force you to put up and support your claim rather
>> than raving.
>>
>> Just think, Henry.  You could be just $250 from proving Einstein
>> wrong! Do you really want to miss out on that chance at greatness?

>I have already proved Einstein wrong and it cost me nothing.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you have never proved Einstein wrong, Ralph.
Doing so, Ralph, remains a fantasy in your little mind, Ralph.  Ralph,
you and I both know that you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, are simply too
scared to get the data, Mr. Rabbidge, since you *know*, Ralph, that it
supports Einstein, Ralph.  Well, it would, Ralph, if you had the slightest
clue, Ralph, what to do with the data, Ralph.  Ralph, as you just proved,
Ralph, you simply aren't very smart, Ralph.

>>> The precession is obviously chaotic and unpredictable...

>> It's not "obvious", Henry, until we see the data.

>It is obvious to anyone except an indoctrinated dingleberry

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it's not obvious at all, Ralph, if there is no 
data available, Ralph, to show it either way, Ralph.

Oh, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, don't you think that being able to define a
key in an editor to insert text "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" and another key
as simply "Ralph", as a really cool invention, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
Now Ralph, don't make me wear out my "Ralph" key, Ralph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564753

On 23/03/2016 4:00 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

...a lot of incomprehensible garbage.

I suspect he was drunk at the time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564787

HGW <hgw@...> writes:

>On 23/03/2016 4:00 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>...a lot of incomprehensible garbage.

>I suspect he was drunk at the time

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I am hoping that you learned your lesson and you
accept your punishment, Ralph.  Did you, Ralph? Ralph, somehow I doubt it,
Ralph.  Mr. Rabbidge, I had a bit of fun writing that, and Ralph M.,
perhaps a few others who are already amused by your name hangup may have
enjoyed it as well, Ralph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564812

RAlphenY, MalguY,
stick to the mathematica (that is,
four subjects, not including arithmetic [logic\binary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564930

On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted:

..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564945

there are two spatially pythagorean theorems,
one of which is just the diameter of a sphere

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#565132

HGW <hw@...> writes:

>On 24/03/16 00:40, Michael Moroney virtualy admitted:

>..that he is a scientific ignoramus with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Ralph, why won't you get the Mercury data to show us how "it's obvious"
its orbit is Newtonian?  You keep whining "it's obvious", but without any
data it can't be obvious.

For a mere $250 investment, you can prove GR wrong.  That will surely
produce a Nobel Prize in Physics in the name of Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge,
Wouldn't you like Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge to be listed right next to
Newton and Galileo as one of the greats of science?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564126

On 3/20/2016 2:43 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 21/03/16 05:22, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@...> writes:
>
>>
>> Of course we all know you really don't want to see the data. You'd
>> rather bury your head in the sand and scream "Mercury's orbit is too
>> chaotic! Einstein is wrong!!"  And you wouldn't know what to do with
>> the data even if you did have it.
>
> Whatever Mercury's orbit does or does not do is purely Newtonian. The
> hoax about its precession

Notice that the hoax about its precession was observed a couple 
centuries before Einstein was born, and Le Verrier himself studied 
Mercury's precession between 1843 and 1859. Einstein was born in 1879.

Quite remarkable that the hoaxsters could predict that Einstein would 
work on the same thing 60 years after Le Verrier's work.

> is just one example in a long list of
> fraudulent claims intended to promote the name Einstein as the world
> symbol of genius. All he did was plagiarize Lorentz's theory...which is
> completely wrong anyway....
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564117

On 3/19/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 20/03/16 07:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> Which one did you have in mind?
>>
>>> ...and a maths theory does not produce physical effects.
>>
>> The items above are physical causes.
>>
>>> Chaotic precession occurred long before Einstein raised his ugly theory.
>>
>> Yes, except by measurement, it's not very chaotic. About a half a
>> percent variation from orbit to orbit.
>
> Do you mean an average of half a percent over 175 years?

No, I mean half a percent from orbit to orbit.
The error on the average over 175 years is 27 times smaller.
I already explained this to you, and not too long ago, so I'm gathering 
that either:
- you cannot read
- you do not read, by deliberate choice
- you have Alzheimers.

> You cannot
> produce the actual figures for each orbit can you? I would like to see
> them..

The reference has been provided. Why don't you toddle off to the library 
to look at them?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564241

'll get back to that|you

> you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at 
> all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to 
> do that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564255 — query

is there any known electronic precession

> > you still haven't told me why a planet's orbit should precess at 
> > all. That should be easy for an expert like you. When are you going to 
> > do that?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web