Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 03:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:27 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:41 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 19:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 23:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 11:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 04:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-02 05:46 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:43 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 08:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 12:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 13:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 16:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:52 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 18:04 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 17:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n445fu$sge$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371531 |
On 12/7/2015 8:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > Why Not? Why can't an energetic split into two less energetic photons? Because angular momentum wouldn't be conserved. And angular momentum is always conserved. Do you know what angular momentum is, Ken? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <daff6eae-d97d-4968-b862-11fc5f1c9efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371206 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:41:49 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > >> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the > >> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections > >> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. > > > > No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the > > scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. > > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind > > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, [...] > > Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at > least six experiments already. Einstein's derision of it as "spooky action > at distance" (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett's and Brassard's > BB84 at the latest. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement> Looks like something got entangled in your editor :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <12079958.sfVjdo2mKi@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371247 |
JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:41:49 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> > On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
>> >> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the
>> >> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections
>> >> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real.
>> > No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the
>> > scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all.
>> > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind
>> > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, [...]
>> Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at
>> least six experiments already. Einstein's derision of it as "spooky
>> action at distance" (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett's and
>> Brassard's BB84 at the latest.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement>
>
> Looks like something got entangled in your editor :-)
Everything is fine with my editor. You may want to adjust your glasses
instead, or exchange them for some that do not show what you want to read
but what was actually written.
HTH
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <685f4045-4e5d-4c7f-9f06-5f324c44b2a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371256 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:41:49 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' > > Lahn wrote: > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > >> >> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the > >> >> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections > >> >> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. > >> > No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the > >> > scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. > >> > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind > >> > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, [...] > >> Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at > >> least six experiments already. Einstein's derision of it as "spooky > >> action at distance" (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett's and > >> Brassard's BB84 at the latest. > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement> > > > > Looks like something got entangled in your editor :-) > > Everything is fine with my editor. You may want to adjust your glasses > instead, or exchange them for some that do not show what you want to read > but what was actually written. OK, I'm not really a part of this conversation but here is what I saw through my glasses: [Sylvia:] >> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, [...] [your response:] > Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at > least six experiments already. What am I missing? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1976349.ix9FaOxyLa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371258 |
JanPB wrote: > OK, I'm not really a part of this conversation but here is what I saw > through my glasses: > > [Sylvia:] >>> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, [...] > > [your response:] >> Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at >> least six experiments already. > > What am I missing? The rest of each of those postings, the latter referring to the former. PointedEars -- Two neutrinos go through a bar ... (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8v2dnYH3cZOLFcHLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On 11/28/15 11/28/15 - 6:36 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > Group: Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. Nope. Just your personal FANTASIES are "going down the drain". What you write is not really about relativity at all, it is about your PERSONAL MISTAKES AND FANTASIES. In particular, NONE of your quoted experiments violate SR, the first merely displays CORRELATIONS, and the second merely displays PHASE VELOCITIES >> c. Neither of those is capable of transferring information faster than c. Don't get me wrong: a metamaterial with an effective index of refraction of zero is VERY interesting. As your second quote says, it has many potential applications. But it does not violate SR. As I have often said around here, the transfer of information via a wave occurs at its front velocity (not at its phase velocity nor at its group velocity). Depending on the material in which it propagates, either phase or group velocity can be > c, but front velocity has never been observed to be > c -- only this last would violate SR. Your second quote refers to this: "the phase of light passing through this material can travel infinitely fast without violating the known laws of physics." -- those "known laws" include SR. The experimenters themselves know they have not violated or refuted SR. It is only your PERSONAL FANTASY that they have done so. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3i5no$2v1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371150 |
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:32:06 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts написал: > As I have often said around here, the transfer of information via a wave > occurs at its front velocity (not at its phase velocity nor at its group > velocity). Depending on the material in which it propagates, either > phase or group velocity can be > c, but front velocity has never been > observed to be > c -- only this last would violate SR. More probably you both are wrong, since information has merely to do with bits and the smallest bit/transition states than with waves, phases and frontwaves. > Your second quote refers to this: "the phase of light passing through > this material can travel infinitely fast without violating the known > laws of physics." -- those "known laws" include SR. > The experimenters themselves know they have not violated or refuted SR. > It is only your PERSONAL FANTASY that they have done so. If a black hole beats the speed of light, why not something else?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3i737$3km$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #371162 |
On 11/30/2015 07:49 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:32:06 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts > написал: > > More probably you both are wrong, since information has merely to do with > bits and the smallest bit/transition states than with waves, phases and > frontwaves. > But the information of these transition has to travel somehow. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3i7l2$8g4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371163 |
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:15:04 +0100 пользователь Poutnik написал: > On 11/30/2015 07:49 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: >> суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:32:06 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts >> написал: >> >> More probably you both are wrong, since information has merely to do >> with bits and the smallest bit/transition states than with waves, >> phases and frontwaves. > > But the information of these transition has to travel somehow. Yes, likely. But I don't what to appear arrogant making such a strong statement, "has to". "Has to" is a strong statement. And is arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3jqeu$6e1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #371164 |
On 11/30/2015 08:22 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:15:04 +0100 пользователь Poutnik написал: > >> On 11/30/2015 07:49 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: >>> суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:32:06 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts >>> написал: >>> >>> More probably you both are wrong, since information has merely to do >>> with bits and the smallest bit/transition states than with waves, >>> phases and frontwaves. >> >> But the information of these transition has to travel somehow. > > Yes, likely. But I don't what to appear arrogant making such a strong > statement, "has to". "Has to" is a strong statement. And is arrogant. > Then refresh your knowledge how arrogance is defined. Rules of observed nature behaviour often implies strong statement. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ktdh$clj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371220 |
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:51:44 +0100 пользователь Poutnik написал: >>> But the information of these transition has to travel somehow. >> >> Yes, likely. But I don't what to appear arrogant making such a strong >> statement, "has to". "Has to" is a strong statement. And is arrogant. >> > Then refresh your knowledge how arrogance is defined. > Rules of observed nature behaviour often implies strong statement. I don't need to do that. Any physicist with a bit of lab experience in the field, knows that you never may say "has to" to Nature. That would be stupid and arrogant. You seems to be vastly uneducated and stupid as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3jqld$7kf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #371164 |
On 11/30/2015 08:22 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > > Yes, likely. But I don't what to appear arrogant making such a strong > statement, "has to". "Has to" is a strong statement. And is arrogant. > It is a funny rule, that people having nothing to say to the topic quickly switch to alternative personal topics. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ktii$clj$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371221 |
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:55:10 +0100 пользователь Poutnik написал: > On 11/30/2015 08:22 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: >> >> Yes, likely. But I don't what to appear arrogant making such a strong >> statement, "has to". "Has to" is a strong statement. And is arrogant. >> > It is a funny rule, that people having nothing to say to the topic > quickly switch to alternative personal topics. In other words, you are so inexperienced and stupid, not sensing that is totally arrogant to say "has to" to Nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3kh5m$b26$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On 11/28/2015 6:36 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > Group: > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. Let this be a lesson to you about how badly translated a scientific paper in the hands become in the hands of non-scientist journalists. > > SCIENCE PHYSICS > What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light > Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 > > 8**************************************************************************************************** > > Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' > Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb358cb3-33c9-420a-a788-3d6f75836dc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 14:36:21 UTC+2, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > Group: > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. > > SCIENCE PHYSICS > What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light > Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 > > A new study confirms a theory that the great man of physics never much liked > If you want to play in the quantum sandbox, you have to accept some bizarre rules. You have to accept that a single thing can exist in two states at once--alive and dead, black and white--until it's observed or measured in some way, at which point it instantly takes on one quality or the other. You have to accept that two particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entangled in such a way that anything you do to one instantly affects the other. And you have to accept that the strictest, no-exceptions rule in all of physics--that nothing can move faster than the speed of light--may have some exceptions after all. > Einstein hated the quantum sandbox, especially the part about entanglement. It's not at all hard to believe that two particles separated by great distances can indeed influence one another via some field or wave, but that information can travel no faster than light speed. If the particles are one billion light years apart, it should take one billion years for something you do to one to have an impact on the other. The idea that that could happen with no time lag at all was something Einsten dismissed as "spooky action at a distance"--and he wanted no part of it. > But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. And with that, the entire field of quantum physics gets a big boost. > The principle that was supposed to make quantum entanglement impossible is known as local-realism, which conforms to Einsteinian physics by establishing that any signal from any sender to any receiver must obey the light-speed limit (that's the local part) and that outcomes are fixed and determined before an object is observed, not as a result of the observation (that's the realism part). > In 1964, physicist John Bell of CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research), developed the equations that freed quantum physics from the strictures of local-realism, defining mathematically how particles can be entangled in such a way that they are both part of what is known as a single wave function--instead of each particle being defined by its own wave function. Start by thinking of the particles as identical twins with the same DNA; then think of those same twins sort of sharing the same body--and sort of not. OK, that second part requires a bit of a leap, but never mind, the math adds up. > Even Bell, though, didn't pretend that he had nailed the quantum case down completely. His equations still contained two loopholes: the locality loophole (the possibility that the particles are communicating across a small enough space through an efficient enough mechanism that they are indeed not violating light speed); and the detection loophole (that your equipment may be in some way flawed, so that the particles either weren't properly entangled in the first place, or that you're inaccurately analyzing the influence they have on each other). > To close those loopholes, a team led by physicists Bas Hensen and Ronald Hanson placed two instruments about 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mi.) apart in labs at opposite ends of the Delft campus. Each lab contained an instrument with a diamond trap designed to hold an electron fast, so that it could be hit with microwave and laser bursts. Those jolts of energy caused both electrons in both labs to emit photons that traveled down optical fibers to a third instrument in a lab equidistant between them. The convergence of those photons caused the entanglement of the two electrons that had produced them. > Once that quantum union had taken place, the rest of the entanglement process played out--with observations or measurements of the spin rate of one electron instantly affecting the other one. And in this case instantly means exactly what it is supposed to mean--which is even faster than it would have taken light to travel the 1.3 km distance. > What's more, the experiment didn't work just once. Henson and Hanson ran 245 trials across 220 hours of testing sessions over 18 days, yielding results that were consistent and reliable enough to beat the statistical distance opened by Bell's two loopholes--effectively closing them both. > "Our experiment realizes the first Bell test that simultaneously addresses both the locality loophole and the detection loophole," the researchers wrote. "Being free of the experimental loopholes, the set-up tests local-realist theories without introducing extra assumptions." In other words, on this score Einstein was wrong and Bell was even righter than he believed. > None of this means that any of the theories Einstein did develop about classical physics were in error, anymore than it would mean that the findings of the world's greatest bacteriologist were incorrect because they didn't include anything about viruses--especially if the bacterial work was done before medical science knew viruses exist at all. Physics could never have gotten to the quantum without working through the classical first. And while Einstein picked the right word when he called quantum entanglement spooky, the Delft study now shows that it's very real too. > > 8**************************************************************************************************** > > Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' > Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm > > Researchers at Harvard University announced recently that they had successfully developed a means of manipulating light at the nanoscale, which could lead to photonic-based (rather than electronic) telecommunications. Think, ubiquitous fiber optics. The team reportedly developed an on-chip metamaterial made from silicon pillars embedded in polymer and wrapped in gold film that exhibits a refractive index of zero. In English, that means that the phase of light passing through this material can travel infinitely fast without violating the known laws of physics. > See, the light passing through this metamaterial is still moving at 299,792,458 m/s and is still the fastest thing in the universe. However, light's speed can also be measured by its "phase velocity," the speed at which light's wavelength crests are moving. Basically phase velocity measures how much a wavelength of light is condensed or elongated as it travels through a material. If you shine a light at water, for example, light gets "squished" slightly because the liquid environment is more dense than atmosphere. Conversely, if you shine a light from the bottom of a swimming pool, the wavelength elongates once it hits the surface. As such, it has a refraction index of 1.3. > Now when you have a material like this with a refractive index of 0, things get What your professors told you about the Gravitons speed and Gravitons momentum, because Gravitation is the most important force in nature. For me: "I am the first who understood and explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Momentum, Negative Mass and Negative Energy" Adrian Ferent For the rest of the world: The gravitons do not exist, or have the speed equal with the speed of light c = 3 × 10^8 m/s, Positive Momentum, Positive Mass and Positive Energy! https://www.academia.edu/19214587/Ferent_Gravitation_theory https://independent.academia.edu/ADRIANFERENT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61e7459d-9718-4f9c-a2b0-c5252dd5a599@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371324 |
"I am the first who understood and explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Momentum, Negative Mass and Negative Energy" Adrian Ferent It's not negative energy it is additional entropy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00519ee1-0a17-452b-8364-55df4f32bce6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
String theory is wrong! The graviton in String theory is a closed string with the length of couple Planck lengths. This means the graviton is gigantic and that is why the String theory is wrong because is limited to the speed of light! I am the first who realized that the gravitons with the speed of light will not escape a black hole. This means if the (gravitation) gravitons have the speed of light like Einstein field equations confirm, the black holes will not attract anything. General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain Gravitation. "I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy" Adrian Ferent https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287331589_Ferent_Gravitation_theory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n5a010$equ$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372502 |
On 12/21/2015 3:45 PM, Adrian Ferent wrote: > I am the first who realized that the gravitons with the speed of light will not escape a black hole. Adrian, I think you'll find, if you do some reading, that this is not a new question and not an unanswered question. I did a quick web search and immediately found hundreds of web pages, ranging from targeting novices to targeting experts, that all address this. If you're looking for a shorthand answer, gravitons are virtual particles. Virtual particles are not bound by the speed of light in ANY quantum theory. This is true of virtual photons in quantum electrodynamics as well. So, just a bit of advice: If you stumble on what seems like a simple and obvious objection to a well-investigated theory, you should presume that a) all simple and obvious objections would get asked in the first round of questions, b) someone else has already raised the simple and obvious objection, and c) the answer is already out there. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5a160$h7t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372503 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > If you're looking for a shorthand answer, gravitons are virtual > particles. Virtual particles are not bound by the speed of light in ANY > quantum theory. This is true of virtual photons in quantum > electrodynamics as well. What's a virtual particle then, not existent which may fly faster than the speed of light? You probably should summarize since you say read so many interesting papers with math inside them > So, just a bit of advice: If you stumble on what seems like a simple and > obvious objection to a well-investigated theory, you should presume that Completely nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ddrmjvF30t0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372504 |
On 22/12/2015 10:15 AM, Ezra Farrow wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> So, just a bit of advice: If you stumble on what seems like a simple and >> obvious objection to a well-investigated theory, you should presume that > > Completely nonsense. > Short summary - don't assume you're so much cleverer than all the other thinkers in the world. You're likely to be disappointed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web