Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: Mike (eleatis_at_yahoo.gr)
Date: 11/21/04
- Next message: tinyurl.com/uh3t: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Jon G.: "Re: Root Finder ix.,final"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Nov 2004 15:08:19 -0800
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<v41od.127537$R05.51624@attbi_s53>...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Shame on you:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303346
> >
> > Why don't you take a break from these ng's. You post crap. It's
> > Kopeikin by the way. 'Kopkein' is what you think you have heard like
> > the other stuff you post here.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Could mike be trying to insinuate that the above reference say that the
> speed of gravitational wave propagation is *not* the same as the speed of
> light? If so shame on Mike!
These papers contain rebutals to Kopeikin's claims and were given
because of the reference made to him. Obviously, you missed the point.
The papers say Kopeikin's clalculations were wrong. They do not
contain an experiment that proves the speed of gravity equals the
speed of light.
They were presented because Kolker called on Kopeikin (since he has no
other calls to make).
Question: do you know how to have an intelligent conversation?
Mike
- Next message: tinyurl.com/uh3t: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Jon G.: "Re: Root Finder ix.,final"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
