Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430206 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 01:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 11:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 10:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-08-29 13:31 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 06:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 19:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 19:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:47 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:01 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:06 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 02:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-04 21:03 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 13:58 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-05 06:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-05 21:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-07 09:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:55 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 11:20 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-08 19:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 14:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 16:00 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 09:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:13 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-09 19:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 12:27 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 12:30 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-07 18:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 10:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 15:57 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 10:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-06 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:08 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-06 12:00 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-06 22:36 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 13:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-07 11:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 11:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 19:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-07 20:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-07 17:48 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 01:01 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-08 10:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 10:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 21:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-08 15:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 01:15 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-08 16:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 06:39 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-09 07:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 18:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-09 17:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:15 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:54 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 13:14 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 16:32 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:14 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 11:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 21:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-10 18:21 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 20:38 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 12:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-12 14:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-13 17:32 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-14 15:29 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-15 03:38 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-10 06:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-10 16:54 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:07 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:50 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-11 16:52 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 10:30 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 19:57 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 13:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:23 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:27 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 14:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 07:11 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 05:47 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 15:51 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-12 21:04 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-09-13 01:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 14:16 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 05:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-12 18:57 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 00:17 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 09:50 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-13 15:10 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-13 01:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-13 12:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-13 23:48 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:35 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-14 02:16 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-14 21:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 08:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-15 10:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:16 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-16 17:02 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 18:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 07:48 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-19 08:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:12 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 13:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 16:49 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 22:24 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 18:04 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-21 20:09 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 09:21 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 16:59 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 03:02 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 09:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-22 18:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 15:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 20:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-15 20:31 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-15 23:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-16 04:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-16 09:08 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-15 21:20 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-16 06:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-17 09:24 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-17 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-18 08:39 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:34 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-11 07:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-10 23:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-11 19:44 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.nett> - 2017-09-12 10:50 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:52 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:34 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 03:54 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-13 09:45 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-12 21:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-14 08:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-13 22:55 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:08 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-11 04:38 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 13:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-11 17:28 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 09:35 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-11 21:25 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-11 22:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-12 20:37 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-10 20:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-09 00:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 07:20 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-08 22:27 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-10 19:17 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-08 13:46 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 12:02 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 16:19 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 09:21 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 03:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 19:31 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 06:29 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-07 00:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:51 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 17:52 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 09:36 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:09 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:00 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:00 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 18:07 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:04 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 03:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:14 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:21 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:40 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 20:26 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 09:57 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 02:18 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:05 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 02:12 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:41 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 04:58 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:05 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-28 20:43 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-29 19:58 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-29 13:05 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-30 05:43 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-30 21:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 09:40 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-08-31 10:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 22:02 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 02:00 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 06:53 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 07:26 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-08-31 14:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:15 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R. B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 01:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 02:36 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-01 04:20 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 11:01 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 22:21 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 04:34 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:11 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-02 04:57 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 05:51 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:29 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:24 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:18 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 20:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:47 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:56 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 06:10 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 09:22 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 10:16 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 17:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 03:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 09:23 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 00:29 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-04 20:59 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 05:59 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 11:42 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 10:33 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 17:43 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 20:45 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 22:31 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-04 14:54 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 19:13 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-05 20:07 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-05 15:14 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:46 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 00:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:52 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 16:07 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:56 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 19:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:41 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 17:44 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 21:17 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-08 16:49 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 03:27 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-08 14:28 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:12 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-09 06:48 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-06 10:26 +1000
Neutrinos (was: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 10:58 -0500
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 21:56 +0200
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-02 09:19 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-03 09:32 +1000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700
Page 16 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 15:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oosath$uso$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431413 |
On 9/6/17 7:27 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> JanPB wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> JanPB wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OPERA did >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the result they got was FTL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Their PRELIMINARY result was slightly (but significantly) >>>>>>>> faster than light. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Their experimental result was FTL neutrinoes. They spent >>>>>>> months trying to find a way to deny that, then they published, >>>>>>> asking for help to find a way to deny it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They corrected that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yair, yair. "Corrected". Right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. There was an equipment problem. >>>>> >>>>> I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where >>>>> *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision >>>>> and procedural integrity. >>>> >>>> It happens. Life is not perfect. >>>> >>>>>> Things like this happen, you know. >>>>> >>>>> At CERN? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> And it took half a bloody year to find it? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been >>> discoverable in the same day that the equipment inspection >>> was ordered. >>> >>>>> That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable >>>>> in an auto repair shop. >>>> >>>> No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. >>> >>> Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly >>> organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to >>> prevent such errors. >> >> Fascinating that you speak as though you were there and were > > That's "are", moron. You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? > >> familiar with the procedures. > > Laboratories everywhere have much in common, moron. One of them > is careful attention to detail. Another is the assignment of > particular areas of responsibility to particular individuals. > Another is the institution of failsafe procedures wherever > possibke. > > I'd be interested to see your link to a laboratory somewhere > in respected of which it is reliably documented that "loose > connections" occurred and took months to find. Well, I think the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures and the assignment of individuals to check everything before operation would prevent bad outcomes. Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the accelerator at Brookhaven. You say these things cannot happen, and yet they do. > >> Are you listed on the collaboration manifest? > > Nope. > >> No? > > Yes. > >> Then out of what orifice are you speaking? > > Try addressing the points made, moron. Your attempts at abuse > are pathetic. Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > >>>>> And you accept that it's the *real* story at CERN? >>>> >>>> Yes, of course. What's with that veritable MANIA of seeking >>>> totally absurd conspiracies where a simple explanation >>>> involving human error suffices? >>> >>> What is it with that mania you dogmatising dimwits have of >>> accusing critics of harbouring conspiracy theories when >>> they're pointing up a perfectly ordinary case of self-deception? >>> >>> ----further insane accusations snipped---- -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor3iua.nc5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431510 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where > > > > > > *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision > > > > > > and procedural integrity. > > > > > > > > > > It happens. Life is not perfect. > > > > > > > > > > > > Things like this happen, you know. > > > > > > > > > > > > At CERN? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > And it took half a bloody year to find it? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been > > > > discoverable in the same day that the equipment inspection > > > > was ordered. > > > > > > > > > > That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable > > > > > > in an auto repair shop. > > > > > > > > > > No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly > > > > organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to > > > > prevent such errors. > > > > > > Fascinating that you speak as though you were there and were > > > > That's "are", moron. > > You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? Wrong again, morn. I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. > > > familiar with the procedures. > > > > Laboratories everywhere have much in common, moron. One of them > > is careful attention to detail. Another is the assignment of > > particular areas of responsibility to particular individuals. > > Another is the institution of failsafe procedures wherever > > possibke. > > > > I'd be interested to see your link to a laboratory somewhere > > in respected of which it is reliably documented that "loose > > connections" occurred and took months to find. > > Well, I think No, you don't. You opine, and poorly. > the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures > and the assignment of individuals to check everything before > operation would prevent bad outcomes. Wrong again. moron. Failsafe procedures do that; individual assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: the reduce the probability of bad outcomes. But they also improve trouble-shooting. > Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection > between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it > started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. Wasn't failsafe then, was it. > Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the > accelerator at Brookhaven. More failprone provedures. > You say these things cannot happen, Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. > and yet they do. The truth of what we have here is your idiot acceptance that large numbers of people with high levels of excpertise in what they do, all of the assigned to particular areas of responsibility, with everything in the whole installation checked and double-checked both before and after every use, can operate the installation with a "loose connection" and then be unable to find that "loose connection" for nigh of a year. You're a gullible fool. And so too are they at CERN who believe it. > > > Are you listed on the collaboration manifest? > > > > Nope. > > > > > No? > > > > Yes. > > > > > Then out of what orifice are you speaking? > > > > Try addressing the points made, moron. Your attempts at abuse > > are pathetic. > > Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous > opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that you're dealing with ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08e4cb4a-b694-4854-b357-c71ffec502e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431524 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? > > Wrong again, morn. You're a very poor speller, fool. > I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. Highly unlikely, unless it was as a lab rat. > > Well, I think > > No, you don't. You opine, and poorly. That's just YOUR opinion, and a very poor one at that. “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” -- Douglas Adams The only justification for yours is that you are a dishonest weasel. > > the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures > > and the assignment of individuals to check everything before > > operation would prevent bad outcomes. > > Wrong again. moron. So you've learned to spell. What progress! But you're still a lying maggot. > Failsafe procedures do that; Yeah, like the backup generators at Fukushima :-)) > individual assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: the reduce the > probability of bad outcomes. Obviously, since you were born anyway. > > Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection > > between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it > > started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. > > Wasn't failsafe then, was it. Nothing really is. Calling a procedure failsafe is no guarantee. Anyone who believes that failsafe really means FAIL SAFE has a significant mental problem. Do you rock back and forth a lot? > > Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the > > accelerator at Brookhaven. > > More failprone provedures. Yeah, like you being born. > > You say these things cannot happen, > > Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. “There’s only one person you’re guaranteed to spend the rest of your Life with … yourself. Don’t live the rest of your life with an asshole.” – QuoteGate > > and yet they do. > > The truth of what we have here is your idiot acceptance that large > numbers of people with high levels of excpertise in what they do, > all of the assigned to particular areas of responsibility, with > everything in the whole installation checked and double-checked > both before and after every use, can operate the installation > with a "loose connection" and then be unable to find that "loose > connection" for nigh of a year. > > You're a gullible fool. Talking about yourself again. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” -- Richard P. Feynman > > Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous > > opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > > If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed > with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. “Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick.” -- Anonymous > And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that > you're dealing with ignorance. What goes around comes around, asshole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 16:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ootehu$ek1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431546 |
On 08/09/17 14:17, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>> You're a gullible fool.
>
> Talking about yourself again.
>
> “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
> easiest person to fool.” -- Richard P. Feynman
>
>>> Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous
>>> opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings.
>>
>> If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed
>> with attacking my "vociferous" opinion.
>
> “Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick.”
> -- Anonymous
>
>> And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that
>> you're dealing with ignorance.
>
> What goes around comes around, asshole.
Hey widdle gary, don't forget your little god thing records everything you do and think. It must already know what a
nasty little creep you are and is very unlikely to let you into its pedophile heaven unless you give its agents a lot
more money.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 03:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor4l32.65l.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431546 |
Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? > > > > Wrong again, morn. > > You're a very poor speller, fool. Sneering at typoes, now Gawy? How desperate can you get? > > I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. > > Highly unlikely, unless it was as a lab rat. I gave you some information about large-laboratory organisation, Gawy. Do feel free to point up any part of it that you think might need correction. > > > Well, I think > > > > No, you don't. You opine, and poorly. > > That's just YOUR opinion, and a very poor one at that. Larf. Is the copycat rtoutine the best you can do? > "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, > sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." > -- Douglas Adams And then there are the opinions of the lackwit Gawy Fuck Knuckle, who judges others by himself. > The only justification for yours is that you are a dishonest weasel. More copycatting. You're pathetic, Gawy. > > > the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures > > > and the assignment of individuals to check everything before > > > operation would prevent bad outcomes. > > > > Wrong again. moron. > > So you've learned to spell. Unlike retarded you, Gawy, I never stop learning. Did you know that there's a number after three? > What progress! Makes yer jealous, ay Gawy? ESAD, loser. > But you're still a lying maggot. Still more copycatting. Have you *ever* had an original thought? > > Failsafe procedures do that; > > Yeah, like the backup generators at Fukushima :-)) Not failsafe, moron. > > individual assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: they reduce the > > probability of bad outcomes. > > Obviously, since you were born anyway. That was *very* bad for lying maggots such as you, Gawy. I despise lying maggots. Which is, of course, why I bother to respond to your drivel at all. > > > Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection > > > between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it > > > started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. > > > > Wasn't failsafe then, was it. > > Nothing really is. Yair, yair, And the tree in the forest didn't fall. Get real, Gawy. When you think a closed system situation through, you can anticipate *any* problem that can occur (well, okay: *you* can't, but anyone with more than half a brain can). That thinking wasn't done wrt the LHC. > Calling a procedure failsafe is no guarantee. Anyone > who believes that failsafe really means FAIL SAFE has > a significant mental problem. You're not significant, Gawy. > Do you rock back and forth a lot? As I've said before, Gawy, you shouldn't judge others by yourself. > > > Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the > > > accelerator at Brookhaven. > > > > More failprone procedures. > > Yeah, like you being born. That was a *process*, moron, not a procedure. And just in case you decide to judge me by yourself again, I'll provide you with a little more info: it was a *successful* process. > > > You say these things cannot happen, > > > > Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. > > "There's only one person you're guaranteed to spend the rest of > your Life with - yourself. Don't live the rest of your life > with an asshole." > - QuoteGate You're sruck with that, Gawy, The only way out is to set fire to yourself. > > > and yet they do. > > > > The truth of what we have here is your idiot acceptance that large > > numbers of people with high levels of excpertise in what they do, > > all of the assigned to particular areas of responsibility, with > > everything in the whole installation checked and double-checked > > both before and after every use, can operate the installation > > with a "loose connection" and then be unable to find that "loose > > connection" for nigh on a year. > > > > You're a gullible fool. > > Talking about yourself again. No wonder you don't learn, Gawy. You have little to no comprehension. > "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you > are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman Well, Richard certainly had you pegged, ay. > > > Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous > > > opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > > > > If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed > > with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. > > "Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick." > -- Anonymous Or you couls eat a tube of supoerflue. > > And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that > > you're dealing with ignorance. > > What goes around comes around, asshole. You started it, you lying maggot. And it's you that continues it. As in this post: you have relied exclusively on abuse: Not a single one of your "responses" addresses any of the issuyes raised. Instead of sooking about veing beaten at your own game, try addressing an issue once in a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f573c54-5085-48f3-8738-8a192a9d87a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431566 |
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 2:27:21 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Sneering at typoes, now Gawy? How desperate can you get? Just repeating what you YOURSELF has done, demented fool. > > > I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. > > > > Highly unlikely, unless it was as a lab rat. > > I gave you some information about large-laboratory organisation, > Gawy. Do feel free to point up any part of it that you think might > need correction. Since you have proven yourself to be a liar, why would ANYONE accept your "information"? > Larf. Is the copycat rtoutine the best you can do? Fat fingers, dishonest fool? > > "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, > > sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." > > -- Douglas Adams > > And then there are the opinions of the lackwit Gawy Fuck Knuckle, > who judges others by himself. That's your problem. You believe everyone is as stupid and dishonest as you are. > More copycatting. You're pathetic, Gawy. The truth hurts, doesn't it? You obviously need more repetition of reality to overcome your delusions. > Unlike retarded you, Gawy, I never stop learning. Did you know that > there's a number after three? The question is, What are you learning? You obviously haven't learned anything about reality, nor about being a rational person. > > What progress! > > Makes yer jealous, ay Gawy? ESAD, loser. Projecting again, nitwit Ned. > > But you're still a lying maggot. > > Still more copycatting. Have you *ever* had an original thought? So you believe having thoughts that are obviously wrong is meaningful? Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good. -- Samuel Johnson > > Yeah, like the backup generators at Fukushima :-)) > > Not failsafe, moron. And NOTHING is. Other than the guarantee that you will never learn to understand reality. > > > individual assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: they reduce the > > > probability of bad outcomes. > > > > Obviously, since you were born anyway. > > That was *very* bad for lying maggots such as you, Gawy. I despise > lying maggots. Then you despise yourself. So sad. > Which is, of course, why I bother to respond to your > drivel at all. You must spend a lot of time talking to yourself, too :-) > > > Wasn't failsafe then, was it. > > > > Nothing really is. > > Yair, yair, And the tree in the forest didn't fall. I guess you like to spout drivel. > Get real, Gawy. When you think a closed system situation through, > you can anticipate *any* problem that can occur (well, okay: *you* > can't, but anyone with more than half a brain can). That thinking > wasn't done wrt the LHC. So you are saying that YOU could have prevented the OPERA error, the Fukushima disaster, hurricane Harvey. So why are you wasting your time here when you could be preventing Ida? “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3 “A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” ― Orrin Woodward You have a LONG way to go before you can deal with reality. > > Calling a procedure failsafe is no guarantee. Anyone > > who believes that failsafe really means FAIL SAFE has > > a significant mental problem. > > You're not significant, Gawy. I never said I was, straw man. But anyone can see that you DO have mental problems. > > Do you rock back and forth a lot? > > As I've said before, Gawy, you shouldn't judge others by yourself. Just asking, autistic one. > > > More failprone procedures. > > > > Yeah, like you being born. > > That was a *process*, moron, not a procedure. The procedure was supposed to have prevented the process, baloney-breath. > [Delusional dishonest bull plop deleted] > > > > You say these things cannot happen, > > > > > > Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. > > > > "There's only one person you're guaranteed to spend the rest of > > your Life with - yourself. Don't live the rest of your life > > with an asshole." > > - QuoteGate > > You're sruck with that, Gawy, The only way out is to set fire to > yourself. I'm not the one acting like an asshole, delusional asshole. > > > You're a gullible fool. > > > > Talking about yourself again. > > No wonder you don't learn, Gawy. You have little to no comprehension. Projecting again, dullard. > > "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you > > are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman > > Well, Richard certainly had you pegged, ay. He had everyone pegged, but you more than me. > > > > Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous > > > > opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > > > > > > If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed > > > with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. > > > > "Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick." > > -- Anonymous > > Or you couls eat a tube of supoerflue. After you. > > > And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that > > > you're dealing with ignorance. > > > > What goes around comes around, asshole. > > You started it, you lying maggot. No, I didn't. So you have Alzheimer's, too, besides being autistic. > And it's you that continues it. > As in this post: you have relied exclusively on abuse: Not a single > one of your "responses" addresses any of the issuyes raised. The only "issue" YOU raised was "everyone's an idiot except yourself." You are such a conceited ass that you have no clue. > Instead of sooking about veing beaten at your own game, try addressing an > issue once in a while. Okay, the issue is that you have proven yourself to be a lying, abusive asshole. If liars' pants really did catch on fire, you would have been immolated the first time you posted to this group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnor5rr2.omj.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #431608 |
Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? > > > > Wrong again, morn. > > You're a very poor speller, fool. Sneering at typoes, now Gawy? How desperate can you get? > > I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. > > Highly unlikely, unless it was as a lab rat. I gave you some information about large-laboratory organisation, Gawy. Do feel free to point up any part of it that you think might need correction. > > > Well, I think > > > > No, you don't. You opine, and poorly. > > That's just YOUR opinion, and a very poor one at that. Larf. Is the copycat routine the best you can do? > "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, > sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." > -- Douglas Adams And then there are the opinions of the lackwit Gawy Fuck Knuckle, who judges others by himself. > The only justification for yours is that you are a dishonest weasel. More copycatting. You're pathetic, Gawy. > > > the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures > > > and the assignment of individuals to check everything before > > > operation would prevent bad outcomes. > > > > Wrong again. moron. > > So you've learned to spell. Unlike retarded you, Gawy, I never stop learning. Did you know that there's a number after three? > What progress! Makes yer jealous, ay Gawy? ESAD, loser. > But you're still a lying maggot. Still more copycatting. Have you *ever* had an original thought? > > Failsafe procedures do that; > > Yeah, like the backup generators at Fukushima :-)) Not failsafe, moron. > > individual assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: they reduce the > > probability of bad outcomes. > > Obviously, since you were born anyway. That was *very* bad for lying maggots such as you, Gawy. I despise lying maggots. Which is, of course, why I bother to respond to your drivel at all. > > > Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection > > > between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it > > > started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. > > > > Wasn't failsafe then, was it. > > Nothing really is. Yair, yair, And the tree in the forest didn't fall. Get real, Gawy. When you think a closed system situation through, you can anticipate *any* problem that can occur (well, okay: *you* can't, but anyone with more than half a brain can). That thinking wasn't done wrt the LHC. > Calling a procedure failsafe is no guarantee. Anyone > who believes that failsafe really means FAIL SAFE has > a significant mental problem. You're not significant, Gawy. > Do you rock back and forth a lot? As I've said before, Gawy, you shouldn't judge others by yourself. > > > Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the > > > accelerator at Brookhaven. > > > > More failprone procedures. > > Yeah, like you being born. That was a *process*, moron, not a procedure. And just in case you decide to judge me by yourself again, I'll provide you with a little more info: it was a *successful* process. > > > You say these things cannot happen, > > > > Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. > > "There's only one person you're guaranteed to spend the rest of > your Life with - yourself. Don't live the rest of your life > with an asshole." > - QuoteGate You're stuck with that, Gawy, The only way out is to set fire to yourself. > > > and yet they do. > > > > The truth of what we have here is your idiot acceptance that large > > numbers of people with high levels of excpertise in what they do, > > all of the assigned to particular areas of responsibility, with > > everything in the whole installation checked and double-checked > > both before and after every use, can operate the installation > > with a "loose connection" and then be unable to find that "loose > > connection" for nigh on a year. > > > > You're a gullible fool. > > Talking about yourself again. No wonder you don't learn, Gawy. You have little to no comprehension. > "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you > are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman Well, Richard certainly had you pegged, ay. > > > Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous > > > opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > > > > If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed > > with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. > > "Some people should use a glue stick instead of chapstick." > -- Anonymous Or you could eat a tube of superglue. > > And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that > > you're dealing with ignorance. > > What goes around comes around, asshole. You started it, you lying maggot. And it's you that continues it. As in this post: you have relied almost exclusively on abuse: only one of your "responses" addresses any of the issues raised. Instead of sooking about being beaten at your own game, try addressing an issue once in a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-08 08:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oou501$1qp7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431524 |
On 9/7/17 5:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> JanPB wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've heard the story. A loose connection. This in a place where >>>>>>> *everyone* is highly qualified and utterly obsessed with precision >>>>>>> and procedural integrity. >>>>>> >>>>>> It happens. Life is not perfect. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Things like this happen, you know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At CERN? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And it took half a bloody year to find it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been >>>>> discoverable in the same day that the equipment inspection >>>>> was ordered. >>>>> >>>>>>> That sort of incompetence would be considered unacceptable >>>>>>> in an auto repair shop. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. The system is orders of magnitude more subtle. >>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant. The Technicians are more highly trained, more highly >>>>> organised, and more numerous. The whole setip is designed to >>>>> prevent such errors. >>>> >>>> Fascinating that you speak as though you were there and were >>> >>> That's "are", moron. >> >> You ARE there? Which laboratory ARE you at? > > Wrong again, morn. I was and *am* familiar with laboratory procedures. Well, perhaps you're familiar with idealized lab procedures as you imagine they are implemented. The question is whether you were there in this particular setting and witnessed that your desired lab procedures were actually implemented. And you've acknowledged that you were not. > >>>> familiar with the procedures. >>> >>> Laboratories everywhere have much in common, moron. One of them >>> is careful attention to detail. Another is the assignment of >>> particular areas of responsibility to particular individuals. >>> Another is the institution of failsafe procedures wherever >>> possibke. >>> >>> I'd be interested to see your link to a laboratory somewhere >>> in respected of which it is reliably documented that "loose >>> connections" occurred and took months to find. >> >> Well, I think > > No, you don't. You opine, and poorly. > >> the point you were trying to make is that failsafe procedures >> and the assignment of individuals to check everything before >> operation would prevent bad outcomes. > > Wrong again. moron. Failsafe procedures do that; individual > assignments don't *prevent* bad outcomes: the reduce the > probability of bad outcomes. > > But they also improve trouble-shooting. > >> Except that there was that quench that vaporized the connection >> between superconducting magnets in the LHC, nine days after it >> started operation, and shut the accelerator down for months. > > Wasn't failsafe then, was it. Nope, and neither was OPERA. Nor are most experiments, because they are built with a reasonable amount of monitoring but not to failsafe criteria, nor are they built with redundancies or failover mechanisms except where there is risk to human life. That's because operational continuity is not a critical concern in an experiment. If a part fails in an experiment and the failure is detected, then you stop the experiment, pull out the defective equipment, and resume the experiment. If a part fails in an experiment and the failure is not detected at the time, then the failure is remedied and the experiment is repeated. Your loud-mouthed bluster is a very thin veneer over your obvious ignorance of the way experimental physics is actually performed. You fool no one. > >> Similar things happened at the Fermilab Tevatron and the >> accelerator at Brookhaven. > > More failprone provedures. > >> You say these things cannot happen, > > Wrong again, liar. Stuff your straw man up your arse. > >> and yet they do. > > The truth of what we have here is your idiot acceptance that large > numbers of people with high levels of excpertise in what they do, > all of the assigned to particular areas of responsibility, with > everything in the whole installation checked and double-checked > both before and after every use, can operate the installation > with a "loose connection" and then be unable to find that "loose > connection" for nigh of a year. > > You're a gullible fool. And so too are they at CERN who believe it. > >>>> Are you listed on the collaboration manifest? >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>>> No? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> Then out of what orifice are you speaking? >>> >>> Try addressing the points made, moron. Your attempts at abuse >>> are pathetic. >> >> Points made from a position of abject ignorance and vociferous >> opinion are worth about as much as a pile of wood shavings. > > If that were your honest opinion, you'd surely not be so obsessed > with attacking my "vociferous" opinion. > > And you certainly wouldn't need to be abusive, or pretend that > you're dealing with ignorance. You make the same mistake that lots of cranks here make. You tell yourself that if what you were saying were ignorant and flat-out wrong, then you would be summarily ignored. And since you are not being ignored, then your conclusion is that you must be onto something. What you do not recognize is that clowns draw attention. People gather around clowns, they point at the clowns, they clap and make noise and jeer at the clowns. When a clown drops his pants, whether he meant to do that or not, you will not find people ignoring that event and giving nothing but silence. You, Ned, are a clown. A rather funny one. Whether you intend that to be your impression or not. This is compounded by a compulsion to double-down on every statement you make, even if it is dodgy and you know it. If someone confronts you on a stupid remark you make, then the only reaction you know is to confront back with equal or greater force. Which only makes you look more the idiot. Word to the wise. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 06:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oouvnf$1bfa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431593 |
On 08/09/17 23:12, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> You make the same mistake that lots of cranks here make. You tell yourself that if what you were saying were ignorant
> and flat-out wrong, then you would be summarily ignored. And since you are not being ignored, then your conclusion
> is that you must be onto something.
>
> What you do not recognize is that clowns draw attention. People gather around clowns, they point at the clowns, they
> clap and make noise and jeer at the clowns. When a clown drops his pants, whether he meant to do that or not, you
> will not find people ignoring that event and giving nothing but silence.
>
> You, Ned, are a clown. A rather funny one. Whether you intend that to be your impression or not.
>
> This is compounded by a compulsion to double-down on every statement you make, even if it is dodgy and you know it.
> If someone confronts you on a stupid remark you make, then the only reaction you know is to confront back with equal
> or greater force. Which only makes you look more the idiot.
>
> Word to the wise.
Bodkin, it is apparent that the stigma of being a mere wood worker has turned you into a compulsive reader of science
fiction...and that is where you learned all your physics.
Which author would you rate as being the second greatest of all time?
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <14KdnTgfILXiTjPEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #430983 |
On 9/3/17 6:23 PM, HGW wrote: > On 03/09/17 23:13, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 9/2/17 9/2/17 6:57 AM, R.B. wrote: >>> On Saturday, 2 September 2017 10:33:36 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog >>> wrote: >>>>>> [about the MINOS beam from Fermilab to Minnesota] >>>> The charged pions and kaons clearly exist and their path through the decay >>>> tunnel can clearly be tracked. >>> As Henry points out one can only assume they travel at close to c. >> >> That is Henry's NONSENSE and IGNORANCE. It is wrong. >> >> The MINOS decay pipe has particle detectors at the end of the decay pipe that >> UNEQUIVOCALLY show that the charged particles from the target travel with >> speed c to within a few parts per million. From measurements in other >> experiments we KNOW that these charged particles at the target are primarily >> pions and kaons, and at the end of the decay pipe many of them are replaced by >> the muons that result from their decay. There are also copious neutrinos, but >> they are not charged and these detectors don't see them; after dozens of >> meters of rock there are neutrino detectors to monitor the beam; of course >> there are also the distant neutrino detectors in Minnesota. >> >> Don't believe anything Henry says. It is always a poor plan to attempt to >> argue from ignorance. > > How do they know they are detecting the same neutrino? You REALLY need to learn how to read -- look up there where I explained that they are NOT MEASURING NEUTRINOS. > Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino. Only in your fantasy world. In the real world, OPERA, MINOS, and SUPER-K have all measured the neutrino speed, and they all come up with a value of c (within their resolutions of a few parts per million). BTW these values are all measured relative to the ECI coordinates of the GPS. > In the pion frame the neutrinos fly off in all directions and have an average > speed of zero...so in the lab frame their average speed is that of the pions, ~c. This is just plain wrong. In part because you confuse speed with velocity, and in part because the average DOES NOT MATTER. For EVERY charged-pion decay, in the pion frame the neutrino has 29.8 MeV kinetic energy, and their directions are isotropically distributed (pion has spin zero). So in the pion frame, on average the neutrino VELOCITY is zero but their average SPEED is greater than 0.99998 c [#]. [#] The current upper bound on nu_mu mass is 0.19 MeV, so the lower bound on the neutrino speed in the pion frame is 0.99998 c (i.e. gamma(v) = 29.8/0.19). Ballistic theory would predict the neutrino speeds in the lab should vary from about zero to about 2 c. Actual measurements show them to travel at c within a few parts per million. "c+v" simply does not apply. As I say: don't believe anything HGW says. It is always a poor plan to attempt to argue from ignorance, and that's all he ever does. It is remarkable how he keeps himself so obstinately ignorant. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 10:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oonfbe$iqb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431215 |
On 06/09/17 02:40, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/3/17 6:23 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> Don't believe anything Henry says. It is always a poor plan to attempt to argue from ignorance.
>>
>> How do they know they are detecting the same neutrino?
>
> You REALLY need to learn how to read -- look up there where I explained that they are NOT MEASURING NEUTRINOS.
>
>> Nobody has directly measured the speed of a neutrino.
>
> Only in your fantasy world. In the real world, OPERA, MINOS, and SUPER-K have all measured the neutrino speed, and
> they all come up with a value of c (within their resolutions of a few parts per million). BTW these values are all
> measured relative to the ECI coordinates of the GPS.
Really and truly, Tom?
Gawd! That's wonderful!
>> In the pion frame the neutrinos fly off in all directions and have an average speed of zero...so in the lab frame
>> their average speed is that of the pions, ~c.
>
> This is just plain wrong. In part because you confuse speed with velocity, and in part because the average DOES NOT
> MATTER.
>
> For EVERY charged-pion decay, in the pion frame the neutrino has 29.8 MeV kinetic energy, and their directions are
> isotropically distributed (pion has spin zero). So in the pion frame, on average the neutrino VELOCITY is zero but
> their average SPEED is greater than 0.99998 c [#].
>
> [#] The current upper bound on nu_mu mass is 0.19 MeV, so the lower bound on the neutrino speed in the pion frame is
> 0.99998 c (i.e. gamma(v) = 29.8/0.19).
>
> Ballistic theory would predict the neutrino speeds in the lab should vary from about zero to about 2 c. Actual
> measurements show them to travel at c within a few parts per million. "c+v" simply does not apply.
I assume you are referring to the same types measurements that your Prokaryotic friend did. ...where the method ASSUMED
the neutrinos all traveled at about the same speed.
In other words, speeds >c were eliminated as spurious.
> As I say: don't believe anything HGW says. It is always a poor plan to attempt to argue from ignorance, and that's
> all he ever does. It is remarkable how he keeps himself so obstinately ignorant.
Here are some details of MINOS
"
Every two seconds, the accelerator directs a burst of protons on the graphite
target. The burst of protons lasts about 10 microseconds, and is grouped into
six batches, each about 1.6 microseconds long, separated by 100 nanosecond gaps.
Each 1.6 microsecond batch consists of 81 bunches, each bunch having a full
width of about 3.5 nanoseconds and separated from the other bunches by
18.83 nanoseconds.
Despite there being trillions of protons in each burst, only occasionally will
a single muon neutrino be received at the far detector. Out of two months of
operation with 0.8x10^20 protons on target, only 372 neutrino events were
recorded at the far detector
------
Even if you reject the analysis that narrows down the time-of-flight time to
a few nanoseconds, we STILL have all of the neutrinos arriving within a 10 μsec
time period at the far detector, for neutrino speed of 1.000 ± 0.004 c.
"
At a rate of 372 arrivals every two months, there wouldn't be many arriving over 10 us, surely. :)
Naturally their speeds would be determined as being near c when arrivals outside that range were ignored as spurious.
> Tom Roberts
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 01:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Neutrinos (was: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887) |
| Message-ID | <2346959.7s5MMGUR32@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430767 |
HGW wrote: > On 31/08/17 15:02, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> The measured speed of the neutrinos reaching the detectors was c >> to within approximately one part in 10^6. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Looks like they move at c relative to their source..... […] You *really* need to learn to *read*. That is _not_ what they said. In fact, as neutrino oscillation shows that neutrinos actually have non-zero mass, they must move at a speed less than the speed of light. But the mass of the lightest mass eigenstate must be so small (PDG lists less than 2 eV∕c² ≈ 3.5653238×10⁻³⁶ kg, or about 4 millionth of the mass of the electron, for the neutrino mass [1]) that there cannot much of a difference between the neutrino speed and the speed of light. Which is corroborated by the results of that experiment. [1] <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/listings/rpp2017-list-neutrino-prop.pdf> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a6eaca6-c514-48e5-bcec-e1fe54c6534e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430524 |
On August 30, 2017, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > After OPERA reported possible superluminal neutrinos in 2011, > researchers were eager to check out this possible Nobel-prize winning > result. > > Neutrinos are produced by 120 GeV protons striking a graphite target. > The immediate result is a shower of positively charged pions and kaons > traveling at nearly the speed of light, which are focused by pulsed > magnetic horns and allowed to spontaneously decay into a > muon-neutrino dominated beam with a peak in the event energy spectrum > of about 3 GeV. > The neutrino pulses travel 735 km to the MINOS detectors, > The neutrinos are produced during the SPONTANEOUS DECAY IN FLIGHT of > pions and kaons, which have half lives on the order of 10^-8 seconds, > depending on the species of particle. In other words, the neutrinos > are not emitted by "stopped" particles. > The measured speed of the neutrinos reaching the detectors was c > to within one part in 10^6. The point of such a moving source experiment, is to observe the velocity of light emitted; is it always c? Neutrinos aren't photons, they don't travel at speed c, hence such an experiment doesn't constitute a test of relativity. So I don't see what your point is here. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9bn4$d9t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430519 |
On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote: > That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute BaTh. That's a ridiculous statement. For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of light and is ACKNOWLEDGED to be so. It isn't an experiment that purports to refute ballistic theories, though it is ALSO in support of relativity. A given experiment can be consistent with more than one theory. Nevertheless, ballistic theories are ruled out because of a small number of experiments designed SPECIFICALLY to distinguish the predictions of ballistic theories vs other theories. And those experiments rule out ballistic theory. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4405211.0VBMTVartN@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430555 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote: >> That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute >> BaTh. > > That's a ridiculous statement. > For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of > light […] That depends on what is meant by that. The term “ballistic theory of light” appears to be the result of an /ad hoc/ definition. For example, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Historical_theories_about_light.2C_in_chronological_order> does not even mention the term “ballistic” other than in the link “ballistic photon”. Perhaps “_particle_ theory” or “_corpuscular_ theory” was meant instead? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 09:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oocptt$1esc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430555 |
On 01/09/17 01:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote:
>> That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute BaTh.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement.
> For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of light and is ACKNOWLEDGED to be so. It isn't an
> experiment that purports to refute ballistic theories, though it is ALSO in support of relativity. A given experiment
> can be consistent with more than one theory.
Bodkin, most of the experiments that are claimed to refute BaTh are those using fast moving mirrors along with
interferometric techniques. If the fools understood BaTh they would have realised beforehand that their experiments were
doomed to produce a null result.
> Nevertheless, ballistic theories are ruled out because of a small number of experiments designed SPECIFICALLY to
> distinguish the predictions of ballistic theories vs other theories. And those experiments rule out ballistic theory.
Those are the ones I just mentioned. None of the others is worth the paper it was written on.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ood5qr$1sqn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430768 |
HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: > On 01/09/17 01:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>> That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute BaTh. >> >> That's a ridiculous statement. >> For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of >> light and is ACKNOWLEDGED to be so. It isn't an >> experiment that purports to refute ballistic theories, though it is ALSO >> in support of relativity. A given experiment >> can be consistent with more than one theory. > > Bodkin, most of the experiments that are claimed to refute BaTh are those > using fast moving mirrors along with > interferometric techniques. If the fools understood BaTh they would have > realised beforehand that their experiments were > doomed to produce a null result. Those aren't the ones I know. > >> Nevertheless, ballistic theories are ruled out because of a small number >> of experiments designed SPECIFICALLY to >> distinguish the predictions of ballistic theories vs other theories. And >> those experiments rule out ballistic theory. > > Those are the ones I just mentioned. None of the others is worth the > paper it was written on. Well, that's your propaganda. But who cares? > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 09:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooff23$1fps$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430786 |
On 02/09/17 12:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote:
>> On 01/09/17 01:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>> That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute BaTh.
>>>
>>> That's a ridiculous statement.
>>> For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of
>>> light and is ACKNOWLEDGED to be so. It isn't an
>>> experiment that purports to refute ballistic theories, though it is ALSO
>>> in support of relativity. A given experiment
>>> can be consistent with more than one theory.
>>
>> Bodkin, most of the experiments that are claimed to refute BaTh are those
>> using fast moving mirrors along with
>> interferometric techniques. If the fools understood BaTh they would have
>> realised beforehand that their experiments were
>> doomed to produce a null result.
>
> Those aren't the ones I know.
That surprises me. I would have thought a person so familiar with this subject would have been very well aware of the
main class of experiments that claim to refute BaTh. Bodkin you have gone well down in my estimation.
>>> Nevertheless, ballistic theories are ruled out because of a small number
>>> of experiments designed SPECIFICALLY to
>>> distinguish the predictions of ballistic theories vs other theories. And
>>> those experiments rule out ballistic theory.
>>
>> Those are the ones I just mentioned. None of the others is worth the
>> paper it was written on.
>
> Well, that's your propaganda. But who cares?
I suppose they are also ones you don't know....
Is there anything you DO know Bodkin?
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oofh4h$1ig1$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430866 |
HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: > On 02/09/17 12:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> HGW <HW@home.net> wrote: >>> On 01/09/17 01:58, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/30/17 7:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> That fact eliminates about 99% of experiments that purport to refute BaTh. >>>> >>>> That's a ridiculous statement. >>>> For example, the MMX is completely consistent with a ballistic theory of >>>> light and is ACKNOWLEDGED to be so. It isn't an >>>> experiment that purports to refute ballistic theories, though it is ALSO >>>> in support of relativity. A given experiment >>>> can be consistent with more than one theory. >>> >>> Bodkin, most of the experiments that are claimed to refute BaTh are those >>> using fast moving mirrors along with >>> interferometric techniques. If the fools understood BaTh they would have >>> realised beforehand that their experiments were >>> doomed to produce a null result. >> >> Those aren't the ones I know. > > That surprises me. I would have thought a person so familiar with this > subject would have been very well aware of the > main class of experiments that claim to refute BaTh. And they are aren't what you described. > Bodkin you have gone well down in my estimation. > >>>> Nevertheless, ballistic theories are ruled out because of a small number >>>> of experiments designed SPECIFICALLY to >>>> distinguish the predictions of ballistic theories vs other theories. And >>>> those experiments rule out ballistic theory. >>> >>> Those are the ones I just mentioned. None of the others is worth the >>> paper it was written on. >> >> Well, that's your propaganda. But who cares? > > I suppose they are also ones you don't know.... > Is there anything you DO know Bodkin? > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 04:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7afe2d5-5b76-4cad-9461-5e7fd475d5f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430416 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:16:25 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 29/08/17 21:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > HGW wrote: > > >>> > >>> The MMX did no such thing. It also did not "disprove the constancy of the > >>> speed of light". And it also did not prove "the speed of light is c in > >>> every inertial frame". Indeed, it is a physical experiment and cannot > >>> "prove" anything. > >> > >> Oh I get it! Only thought experiments can prove anything. […] > > > > He did not say that at all. Unsurprisingly, you are grasping at straws now. > > > > Because in your mind, nothing can be that you do not want to be because you > > are unwilling or incapable of grasping it. Your thinking is wishful, not > > based on logic, and that is why you continuously fail. > > Look, it is quite obvious that the MMX failed because light is ballistic. > All the other attempts to explain the result are desperate and hilarious. The point was you don't understand this stuff. So it doesn't matter what you post here. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web