Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:36 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:58 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:34 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-11 21:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 05:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:04 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:53 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 08:49 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:25 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:37 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 16:38 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 23:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 09:43 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:40 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 12:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 22:12 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 04:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 05:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 05:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 06:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-14 06:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:36 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-16 07:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-18 03:21 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:48 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:52 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-15 21:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:07 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-17 05:59 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 18:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-19 05:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-20 05:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-21 05:47 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:13 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-22 06:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:56 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-23 14:55 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-22 06:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 15:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:07 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 09:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 17:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 12:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 20:36 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 22:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:42 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:11 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:08 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:16 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 17:55 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-28 18:38 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-29 11:48 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:22 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-28 19:40 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-24 23:10 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-25 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:03 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:14 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-21 14:27 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 21:56 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:21 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 11:18 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 20:43 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 19:41 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 19:46 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 19:11 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 21:16 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:57 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 22:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:27 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-15 23:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 01:47 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 10:09 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 06:53 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 19:09 +0000
The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 21:12 +0100
Re: The speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-18 22:14 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-19 22:25 +0100
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 06:10 -0800
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:22 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-20 17:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-21 02:32 +0100
Re: The speed of light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 09:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 14:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-17 22:35 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:14 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:58 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 05:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 05:48 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 06:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:44 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:31 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 00:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 19:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 23:44 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 15:02 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-20 22:34 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 23:16 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 10:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-21 18:52 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:19 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 20:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 20:50 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:46 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-17 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1834893.mebdic153Z@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374084 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:30:11 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And >>>> that changes everything. >>> There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically >>> equal the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light >>> relative to an observer can have virtually any value. >> That is obviously incorrect because the motion of the source of light >> towards or away from an observer is for that observer, without a further >> reference (frame), indistinguishable from a motion of that observer >> towards or away from the source of light. > > Light has only one reference for its speed....its own source. That is incoherent gibberish. > How could anything in Andromeda affect the speed of my light here? That is what you should ask *yourself*. Because it is *you* who has claimed that the speed of light would _not_ be constant, that it would depend on the motion of the source of the light, *despite* *all* observations in the past 400 years providing evidence to the contrary. BTW, you, being on planet Earth, only can know that there is the Andromeda Galaxy because light that was emitted from its stars (ca. 2.54 million years ago) has traveled from the Andromeda Galaxy to the Milky Way Galaxy, to the Sol System, to planet Earth, and to and into the retina of your eye [1]. Whatever you think “your light” is, most of it has travelled huge distances, at 299'792'458 m∕s or less (depending on the optical density of the medium it travels through [2]), before you perceive it. [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light> PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7ebn3$1ism$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374090 |
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:32:56 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: >>> That is obviously incorrect because the motion of the source of light >>> towards or away from an observer is for that observer, without a >>> further reference (frame), indistinguishable from a motion of that >>> observer towards or away from the source of light. >> >> Light has only one reference for its speed....its own source. > > That is incoherent gibberish. ...well why do you bother to write it? >> How could anything in Andromeda affect the speed of my light here? > > That is what you should ask *yourself*. Because it is *you* who has > claimed that the speed of light would _not_ be constant, that it would > depend on the motion of the source of the light, *despite* *all* > observations in the past 400 years providing evidence to the contrary. There are no such observations. Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS experiments that show light speed to be c as predicted by BaTh. > BTW, you, being on planet Earth, only can know that there is the > Andromeda Galaxy because light that was emitted from its stars (ca. 2.54 > million years ago) has traveled from the Andromeda Galaxy to the Milky > Way Galaxy, to the Sol System, to planet Earth, and to and into the > retina of your eye [1]. Whatever you think “your light” is, most of it > has travelled huge distances, > at 299'792'458 m∕s or less (depending on the optical density of the > medium it travels through [2]), before you perceive it. that's elemementary.....so fucking what. > [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell> > [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light> > PointedEars...hollow head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02c7904e-f98c-4ee1-8583-9942b117e776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374151 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:32:56 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > Henry Wilson wrote: > > > > > > How could anything in Andromeda affect the speed of my light here? > > > > That is what you should ask *yourself*. Because it is *you* who has > > claimed that the speed of light would _not_ be constant, that it would > > depend on the motion of the source of the light, *despite* *all* > > observations in the past 400 years providing evidence to the contrary. > > There are no such observations. Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS > experiments that show light speed to be c as predicted by BaTh. BaTh only when predicts that when the source and receiver aren't moving wrt each other. BaTh predicts that light speed will NOT be c if there is relative motion between them, but that nonsense has been refuted by many experiments. "Wilson" is not a physicist since he refuses to accept real measurements while pretending his bogus variable star "results" actually imply the opposite. No self-respecting physicist would stain at a gnat and swallow a camel that needs a BaTh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 01:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1830457.1zbAI5AYWc@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374151 |
Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:32:56 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>> That is obviously incorrect because the motion of the source of light
>>>> towards or away from an observer is for that observer, without a
>>>> further reference (frame), indistinguishable from a motion of that
>>>> observer towards or away from the source of light.
>>> Light has only one reference for its speed....its own source.
>> That is incoherent gibberish.
>
> ...well why do you bother to write it?
*You* have written incoherent gibberish.
>>> How could anything in Andromeda affect the speed of my light here?
>>
>> That is what you should ask *yourself*. Because it is *you* who has
>> claimed that the speed of light would _not_ be constant, that it would
>> depend on the motion of the source of the light, *despite* *all*
>> observations in the past 400 years providing evidence to the contrary.
>
> There are no such observations.
There are plenty of them. I have named quite a few of them just one posting
or two ago.
> Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS experiments that show light speed
> to be c as predicted by BaTh.
Most likely I am not. What are “TWLS experiments” (“The Whole Learning
School” and “Ted Wells Living: Simple” do not fit) and what is “BaTh”
(neither do “Beast and the Harlot” and “Blowed All To Hell”, for example)
supposed to be?
>> BTW, you, being on planet Earth, only can know that there is the
>> Andromeda Galaxy because light that was emitted from its stars (ca. 2.54
>> million years ago) has traveled from the Andromeda Galaxy to the Milky
>> Way Galaxy, to the Sol System, to planet Earth, and to and into the
>> retina of your eye [1]. Whatever you think “your light” is, most of it
>> has travelled huge distances,
>> at 299'792'458 m∕s or less (depending on the optical density of the
>> medium it travels through [2]), before you perceive it.
>
> that's elemementary.....so fucking what.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Irritated?)
The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way at a local relative
speed of ca. 110 km∕s (68 mi/s), but its light is not traveling here faster,
it is just blueshifted.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7flol$p90$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #374166 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1830457.1zbAI5AYWc@PointedEars.de... > There are no such observations. |There are plenty of them. I have named quite a few of them just one posting |or two ago. For a fanatic moron, everything supports the shit he believes. But there is no logic and no sense in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59a6b6bb-cf0c-43cd-af66-3e4a4da91339@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374174 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:09:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1830457.1zbAI5AYWc@PointedEars.de... > > > > > There are no such observations. > > > > There are plenty of them. I have named quite a few of them just one > > posting |or two ago. > > For a fanatic moron, everything supports the shit he believes. > But there is no logic and no sense in it. For a fanatic moron like Wozniak, everything supports the shit he falsely believes, but there is no logic and no sense in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7goso$9p8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374166 |
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 01:47:41 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: >> Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS experiments that show light >> speed to be c as predicted by BaTh. > > Most likely I am not. What are “TWLS experiments” (“The Whole Learning > School” and “Ted Wells Living: Simple” do not fit) and what is “BaTh” > (neither do “Beast and the Harlot” and “Blowed All To Hell”, for > example) > supposed to be? Why don't you go quietly away and learn some of the terminology used on this NG before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. You are obviously a raw beginner who wouldn't understand the difference between a TWLS and an OWLS experiment even if I did try to explain. >>> BTW, you, being on planet Earth, only can know that there is the >>> Andromeda Galaxy because light that was emitted from its stars (ca. >>> 2.54 million years ago) has traveled from the Andromeda Galaxy to the >>> Milky Way Galaxy, to the Sol System, to planet Earth, and to and into >>> the retina of your eye [1]. Whatever you think “your light” is, most >>> of it has travelled huge distances, >>> at 299'792'458 m∕s or less (depending on the optical density of the >>> medium it travels through [2]), before you perceive it. >> >> that's elemementary.....so fucking what. > ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ > (Irritated?) No, just a bit impatient with impressionable juveniles who are infatuated with Einstein's SciFi without understanding a word of what he proposed.. > The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way at a local relative > speed of ca. 110 km∕s (68 mi/s), but its light is not traveling here > faster, it is just blueshifted. Evidence please....Doppler shifted light has all the earmarks of light moving at c+v rather than c. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 21:12 +0100 |
| Subject | The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <1591138.UF0F4moyyV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374216 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 01:47:41 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS experiments that show light >>> speed to be c as predicted by BaTh. >> >> Most likely I am not. What are “TWLS experiments” (“The Whole Learning >> School” and “Ted Wells Living: Simple” do not fit) and what is “BaTh” >> (neither do “Beast and the Harlot” and “Blowed All To Hell”, for >> example) supposed to be? > > Why don't you go quietly away and learn some of the terminology used on > this NG before Well, I tried several scientific dictionaries, and it appears as if “TWLS” and “BaTh” have no meaning in physics. One does not need to know terminology that some crackpots here have invented. However, if you are using terminology, then it is up to you to define it when that is requested. If you know what it means, then you will have no difficulty doing that. > you make an even bigger fool of yourself. No, I leave that to you. > You are obviously a raw beginner who wouldn't understand the difference > between a TWLS and an OWLS experiment even if I did try to explain. Try me. >> The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way at a local relative >> speed of ca. 110 km∕s (68 mi/s), but its light is not traveling here >> faster, it is just blueshifted. > > Evidence please.... Cowen, Ron (2012). "Andromeda on collision course with the Milky Way". Nature International Weekly Journal of Science. Nature (journal). Retrieved 2014-10-06. <http://www.nature.com/news/andromeda-on-collision-course-with-the-milky-way-1.10765#> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision> <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html> > Doppler shifted light has all the earmarks of light moving at c+v rather > than c. No, it has not. That a wave signal is Doppler-shifted means that the *frequency* of the wave changed, not its propagation speed. If, for example, the sound of a car or train approaching you sounds higher than normal, it is because the frequency of the sound waves towards you has increased, not that the speed of sound has; if the sound of a car that is moving away from you sounds lower than normal, it is because the frequency of the sound waves towards you has decreased, not that the speed of sound has. (However, since *sound* waves need a medium for propagation, it is also possible that the motion of the medium causes the Doppler effect, not necessarily the motion of the source or observer.) In the same way, if a light signal is blueshifted, it means that the frequency of the light waves towards the observer has increased, and that the distance between the emitter and the receiver is decreasing; if it is redshifted, it means that the frequency of the light waves towards the observer has decreased, and that the distance between the emitter and the observer is increasing (as with galaxies; see also: Hubble expansion). Blue light has a higher frequency (or shorter wavelength) than red light. (Light waves do not require a medium for propagation; converse to sound waves, they can propagate best in a vacuum. So the motion of a medium does not contribute to the Doppler effect for light.) See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect> So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. PointedEars -- Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? A: It doesn't conduct itself. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light |
| Message-ID | <0-SdnfacwphFYwbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #374225 |
On 1/17/16 1/17/16 2:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Well, I tried several scientific dictionaries, and it appears as if “TWLS”
> and “BaTh” have no meaning in physics.
TWLS and OWLS are not in general use, but are well established in this newsgroup:
TWLS = two-way light speed (i.e. a measurement of the speed of
light over a round-trip path, using a single clock)
OWLS = one-way light speed (i.e. measured over a one-way path, and
thus requiring two clocks; synchronization is an issue...)
"BaTh" is a "theory" concocted by Henry Wilson (using various nyms, of which
"Henry Wilson" is his most common one right now). It is not even physics....
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 22:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <n7jnd0$1lfg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374225 |
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:12:44 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 01:47:41 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> Maybe you are refering to all those TWLS experiments that show light >>>> speed to be c as predicted by BaTh. >>> >>> Most likely I am not. What are “TWLS experiments” (“The Whole >>> Learning School” and “Ted Wells Living: Simple” do not fit) and what >>> is “BaTh” >>> (neither do “Beast and the Harlot” and “Blowed All To Hell”, for >>> example) supposed to be? >> >> Why don't you go quietly away and learn some of the terminology used on >> this NG before > > Well, I tried several scientific dictionaries, and it appears as if > “TWLS” > and “BaTh” have no meaning in physics. Poor fellow... > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision> > <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way- collide.html> > >> Doppler shifted light has all the earmarks of light moving at c+v >> rather than c. > > No, it has not. That a wave signal is Doppler-shifted means that the > *frequency* of the wave changed, not its propagation speed. Hey, dopey. The frequency you refer to is nothing other than 'wave arrival rate'....which is directly dependent on the arrival speed. > If, for example, the sound of a car or train approaching you sounds > higher than normal, it is because the frequency of the sound waves > towards you has increased, not that the speed of sound has; if the sound > of a car that is moving away from you sounds lower than normal, it is > because the frequency of the sound waves towards you has decreased, not > that the speed of sound has. (However, since *sound* waves need a > medium for propagation, it is also possible that the motion of the > medium causes the Doppler effect, not necessarily the motion of the > source or observer.) Go away troll...learn some physics... > So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. You know fuck all about physics and what goes on in this NG. I suggest you read all the articles posted over the last twenty years before you make another fool of yourself. > > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 22:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <n7jo4n$1mdk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374328 |
Henry Wilson wrote: >> So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. > > You know fuck all about physics and what goes on in this NG. I suggest you > read all the articles posted over the last twenty years before you make > another fool of yourself. I read he pretends being an almost half of an engineer. I very doubt he being even that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 22:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <2126343.XXhTjuZ32H@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374328 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:12:44 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Why don't you go quietly away and learn some of the terminology used on >>> this NG before >> Well, I tried several scientific dictionaries, and it appears as if >> “TWLS” and “BaTh” have no meaning in physics. > > Poor fellow... I am a “poor fellow” because terminology invented by some crackpots here obviously has no relationship at all with real world physics? >>> Doppler shifted light has all the earmarks of light moving at c+v >>> rather than c. >> No, it has not. That a wave signal is Doppler-shifted means that the >> *frequency* of the wave changed, not its propagation speed. > > Hey, dopey. The frequency you refer to is nothing other than 'wave > arrival rate'....which is directly dependent on the arrival speed. The frequency is related to the *phase* velocity instead. There can simply be more wave crests or troughs arriving per unit time, because *that* is what frequency means in physics. A few years ago I have modeled the Doppler effect in SVG with equations in MathML (works best in Firefox/Iceweasel); that may help you to understand it a little bit better: <http://PointedEars.de/markup/xml/SVG/doppler.html> >> So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. > > You know fuck all about physics No, I do not think so. > and what goes on in this NG. […] I am certainly not as well-versed in crackpot ideas, that people with a smattering, like you, think are "physics", but I really do not think that is much of a problem for me. You see, different from you I rather stick to learning and knowing real physics: theories validated by experimental results and industrial applications instead of gut feelings. PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 06:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <9b2a602a-1697-45f3-8d72-ff41f25c61b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374411 |
W dniu wtorek, 19 stycznia 2016 22:25:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > I am certainly not as well-versed in crackpot ideas, that people with a > smattering, like you, think are "physics", but I really do not think that is > much of a problem for me. You see, different from you I rather stick to > learning and knowing real physics: Real in the meaning of a relativistic moron. > theories validated by experimental > results and industrial applications In the imagination of a relativistic moron. Standards of your moronic theories are unusable, so they are not used in industrial applications. Check at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 17:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <n7ofp9$vdc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374411 |
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:25:08 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: >> Hey, dopey. The frequency you refer to is nothing other than 'wave >> arrival rate'....which is directly dependent on the arrival speed. > > The frequency is related to the *phase* velocity instead. There can > simply be more wave crests or troughs arriving per unit time, because > *that* is what frequency means in physics. A few years ago I have > modeled the Doppler effect in SVG with equations in MathML (works best > in Firefox/Iceweasel); that may help you to understand it a little bit > better: > > <http://PointedEars.de/markup/xml/SVG/doppler.html> > >>> So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. Poor fellow...what does supersonic Doppler shift of sound got to do with light? You know nothing!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 17:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) |
| Message-ID | <n7og0g$uqv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374520 |
Henry Wilson wrote: >> modeled the Doppler effect in SVG with equations in MathML (works best >> in Firefox/Iceweasel); that may help you to understand it a little bit >> better: <http://PointedEars.de/markup/xml/SVG/doppler.html> lol, he stole the code from somebody else. >>>> So much for *me* being a “raw beginner” in physics IYVHO. Right, he is not even that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 02:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light |
| Message-ID | <1667689.L49LD488KZ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #374521 |
Lawrence Senreich wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: >>> modeled the Doppler effect in SVG with equations in MathML (works best >>> in Firefox/Iceweasel); that may help you to understand it a little bit >>> better: <http://PointedEars.de/markup/xml/SVG/doppler.html> > > lol, he stole the code from somebody else. All of it is my original work, ‘nym-shifting troll. I can prove that. Unless you want to become liable for libel, I strongly suggest you stop making claims to the contrary that you cannot possibly prove. *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet? A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front I find myself very attracted to you. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 09:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The speed of light |
| Message-ID | <n7q91a$1d5b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374554 |
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:32:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > PointedEars It is meaningless drivel anyway. It has nothing to do with light or relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <usidnR1kIc_MYQbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #374216 |
On 1/17/16 1/17/16 1:09 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > Doppler shifted light has all the earmarks of light > moving at c+v rather than c. Not true. You merely base your claims on your personal ignorance. If, and I do mean _IF_, the frequency of Doppler shifted EM radiation emitted by a source moving with speed v directly toward the observer had frequency F0*(1+v/c) then I would agree with your claim about "earmarks". BUT IT DOESN'T. The observed frequency is F0*sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). That has no such "earmarks" at all. And, of course, direct measurements of the speed of EM radiation emitted by moving sources obtain c, not c+v. This sort of thing is measured all the time at the many particle accelerators around the world. They simply would not work if SR were not an accurate model of their behavior (because SR is used in essential ways during their design and operation). Your excessively naive notions about Galilean relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and "BaTh" simply do not work for speeds approaching c. But you are too ignorant to know this. And worse, you carefully keep yourself ignorant. It is outrageous and very stupid for you to assume that of the thousands of physicists working at particle accelerators, every one is an idiot for using SR. In fact, the idiot is you. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7h00t$sa1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #374227 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:usidnR1kIc_MYQbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |It is outrageous and very stupid for you to assume that of the |thousands of physicists working at particle accelerators, every |one is an idiot for using SR. Oh, yes, they are. And you are. It doesn't have to affect the way you're using accelerators, but it obviously affects the way you're discussing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45d3ef76-65b2-4782-b472-e760e54ab006@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374227 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 12:40:51 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > > It is outrageous and very stupid for you to assume that of the > thousands of physicists working at particle accelerators, every > one is an idiot for using SR. One interesting thing I found out on this NG many years ago was that there are many people who have absolutely no problem believing that sort of thing. I don't mean necessarily SR or even physics but practically anything. For one reason or another they find it very easy to cherrypick which is the key technique to reaching any desired conclusion. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web