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 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 09:10 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887 |
| Message-ID | <onvjge$1dud$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 26/08/17 05:27, JanPB wrote his usual crap.
The MMX proved that light moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source. When the apparatus
changed speed, so did the light from the source.
That should be obvious, even to a 2 yo kid.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <695a0d3e-7245-4feb-92ef-e7af3c844e35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430206 |
HGW scribbled
On 26/08/17 05:27, JanPB wrote his usual crap.
The MMX proved that light moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source. When the apparatus
changed speed, so did the light from the source.
That should be obvious, even to a 2 yo kid.
--
HGW, DSc.
c will always be measured to be c because c is the speed of CAUSALITY
"THE NOW" we are all stuck to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 13:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3083057.QJadu78ljV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430206 |
HGW wrote: > The MMX proved that light moves at c relative to its source and everything > at rest with that source. No, the MMX showed – surprising to people at the time – that the idea of the luminiferous ether, as understood at the time, is flawed. Because the experiment failed to detect that ether: Michelson and Morley did not measure an apparent “ether wind” that should have been caused by a stationary, at most partially dragged, ether when Earth moved through that ether. > When the apparatus changed speed, so did the light from the source. None of this happened. You have *completely* misunderstood the experiment: its goal, its null result, and the conclusions that must be drawn from that. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 08:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo26pr$1i42$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430231 |
On 28/08/17 21:33, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> The MMX proved that light moves at c relative to its source and everything
>> at rest with that source.
>
> No, the MMX showed – surprising to people at the time – that the idea of
> the luminiferous ether, as understood at the time, is flawed.
Yes we know that...but they were too stubborn to accept that light speed was source dependent because of de Sitter and
other classically explained optical phenomena.
> Because the experiment failed to detect that ether: Michelson and Morley did
> not measure an apparent “ether wind” that should have been caused by a
> stationary, at most partially dragged, ether when Earth moved through that
> ether.
Yes we know that....
>> When the apparatus changed speed, so did the light from the source.
>
> None of this happened. You have *completely* misunderstood the experiment:
> its goal, its null result, and the conclusions that must be drawn from that.
I fully understand the experiment. I have even performed it.
The explanation put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was very plausible...and I still think there could be some truth
in it. 'Fields' are somewhat like classical aether and can affect molecular bonding in such a a way as to cause length
contractions when matter passes them. That is a reasonable suggestion...but the idea that time is also affected is
nonsensical. It comes basically from the 'light clock' misconception. The MMX essentially involved two light clocks at
right angles and looked for travel time differences between them.....but I expect that is too hard for you.
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 01:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3205427.R56niFO833@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430330 |
HGW wrote: > On 28/08/17 21:33, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> The MMX proved that light moves at c relative to its source and >>> everything at rest with that source. >> >> No, the MMX showed – surprising to people at the time – that the idea of >> the luminiferous ether, as understood at the time, is flawed. > > Yes we know that... You did not, as you have claimed something that is not corroborated by the experiment and its then-surprising (“null”) result. > but they were too stubborn to accept that light speed was source dependent > because of de Sitter and other classically explained optical phenomena. Nonsense. >> Because the experiment failed to detect that ether: Michelson and Morley >> did not measure an apparent “ether wind” that should have been caused by >> a stationary, at most partially dragged, ether when Earth moved through >> that ether. > > Yes we know that.... No, you did not. >>> When the apparatus changed speed, so did the light from the source. >> >> None of this happened. You have *completely* misunderstood the >> experiment: its goal, its null result, and the conclusions that must be >> drawn from that. > > I fully understand the experiment. No, you do not. To begin with, never did “the apparatus change speed”. > have even performed it. As you did not and still do not understand the MMX, the experiment you have performed was not equivalent to it. > The explanation put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was very > plausible... FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré came up with explanations that ascribed strange, /ad hoc/ properties to the ether that cannot be experimentally confirmed. Lorentz was not even convinced that those reflected physical reality, he considered them just to be a working hypothesis. Einstein found out that the assumption of a luminiferous ether with those properties is *unnecessary*, and that if one combines the prediction of Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and the experimental fact, that the speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial reference frames with the classical principle of relativity, one arrives at conclusions that can be experimentally confirmed. (They have been experimentally confirmed numerous times since then.) Not only that, but in doing so, Einstein found out – as through that reasoning he arrived at the same transformation equations that Lorentz did – that the Lorentz transformation is more than just a mathematical trick to explain a single experiment: it reveals a fundamental symmetry of nature. (This was acknowledged later by Lorentz. Only Poincaré was so “stubborn” as to insist on the existence of the ether to his death, even in the absence of experimental evidence for that.) > [pseudo-scientific word salad, ad hominem] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 11:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo2f87$1rs9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430333 |
On 29/08/17 09:52, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> but they were too stubborn to accept that light speed was source dependent
>> because of de Sitter and other classically explained optical phenomena.
>
> Nonsense.
You obviously know a lot about nonsense because that is all you produce.
>
>>> Because the experiment failed to detect that ether: Michelson and Morley
>>> did not measure an apparent “ether wind” that should have been caused by
>>> a stationary, at most partially dragged, ether when Earth moved through
>>> that ether.
>>
>> Yes we know that....
>
> No, you did not.
Fool! I will try to teach you some facts. After TWLS experiments proved to be insufficiently sensitive to measure the
Earth's speed through the supposed aether, Michelson and Morley devised their interferometer experiment which, according
to calculations, should be able to detect changes in the Earth's absolute speed due to its daily rotation or yearly
orbiting of the sun. As we know, the result was null...and that aroused great concern amongst the physics fraternity
because all previous optical theory depended on the existence of an absolute medium.
>>>> When the apparatus changed speed, so did the light from the source.
>>>
>>> None of this happened. You have *completely* misunderstood the
>>> experiment: its goal, its null result, and the conclusions that must be
>>> drawn from that.
>>
>> I fully understand the experiment.
>
> No, you do not. To begin with, never did “the apparatus change speed”.
>
>> have even performed it.
>
> As you did not and still do not understand the MMX, the experiment you have
> performed was not equivalent to it.
Poor idiot! I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year project and used it to check for daily
fringe movements. There were none, as expected.
>> The explanation put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was very
>> plausible...
>
> FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincaré came up with explanations that ascribed
> strange, /ad hoc/ properties to the ether that cannot be experimentally
> confirmed. Lorentz was not even convinced that those reflected physical
> reality, he considered them just to be a working hypothesis.
No. He considered the contractions to be real and physical....but they could not be measured because
> Einstein found out that the assumption of a luminiferous ether with those
> properties is *unnecessary*, and that if one combines the prediction of
> Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and the experimental fact, that the speed of
> light is the same for all observers in inertial reference frames with the
> classical principle of relativity, one arrives at conclusions that can be
> experimentally confirmed. (They have been experimentally confirmed numerous
> times since then.)
They have not. No experiment has measured OWLS from a moving source. No experiment has confirmed any aspect of LET or
SR. Those that claim to do so are laughable.
> Not only that, but in doing so, Einstein found out – as through that
> reasoning he arrived at the same transformation equations that Lorentz did –
> that the Lorentz transformation is more than just a mathematical trick to
> explain a single experiment: it reveals a fundamental symmetry of nature.
Crap. Einstein merely derived equations for an imaginary universe described by his logically imposible P2.
Only fools have been sucked in by it...
> (This was acknowledged later by Lorentz. Only Poincaré was so “stubborn” as
> to insist on the existence of the ether to his death, even in the absence of
> experimental evidence for that.)
Einstein's SR relies entirely on the existence of an absolute frame. Do you really believe a few words in a postulate
and maybe some fairies will unify all light speeds from differently moving sources?
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 10:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oo38rd$pdm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #430334 |
Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW: > > I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final > year project and used it to check for daily fringe movements. There were > none, as expected. > What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"? If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work. I think you are bluffing. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 19:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo3d7o$159u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430355 |
On 29/08/17 18:32, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW:
>>
>> I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year project and used it to check for daily fringe
>> movements. There were none, as expected.
>>
>
> What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"?
>
> If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't
> show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>
> I think you are bluffing.
>
>
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 13:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oo3jbf$171$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #430358 |
Den 29.08.2017 11.47, skrev HGW: > On 29/08/17 18:32, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 29.08.2017 03.15, skrev HGW: >>> >>> I even MADE a rotatable cross beam interferometer as a final year >>> project and used it to check for daily fringe movements. There were >>> none, as expected. >>> >> >> What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"? >> >> If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't >> show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work. > > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! > >> >> I think you are bluffing. >> >> > So I was right. You never made a working interferometer. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 10:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo509f$1ocu$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430364 |
On 29/08/17 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.08.2017 11.47, skrev HGW:
>>> What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"?
>>>
>>> If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't
>>> show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH!
>>
>>>
>>> I think you are bluffing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> So I was right.
> You never made a working interferometer.
I had to. I made all the mirrors too and silvered them. ...nearly blew up the lab when some silver fulminate
exploded...just like the book said it would if I left it standing....
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67fb7573-d8ca-49c1-89a6-98a480d64724@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430419 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:18:59 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 29/08/17 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > So I was right. > > You never made a working interferometer. > > I had to. I made all the mirrors too and silvered them. ...nearly blew up the lab when some silver fulminate > exploded...just like the book said it would if I left it standing.... Rev. W. F. A. Ellison in ATM Book 1? I never had to silver my own mirrors because aluminizing facilities are widely available in the states, but Australia may be different. Just for fun, though, I silvered a diagonal mirror.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 06:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <752065159.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430419 |
HGW wrote: > On 29/08/17 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 29.08.2017 11.47, skrev HGW: >>>> What do you mean by "daily fringe movements"? >>>> >>>> If you made a Michelson interferometer that didn't >>>> show any fringe movements during a day, then it didn't work. >>> >>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH! >>> […] >>> >>>> I think you are bluffing. >> >> So I was right. >> You never made a working interferometer. > > I had to. Because you did not even have access to a highschool-level physics lab? > I made all the mirrors too and silvered them. ...nearly blew up > the lab when some silver fulminate exploded...just like the book said it > would if I left it standing.... If only you had understood the experiment you were trying to repeat in the first place, if your story is even true. Such a waste. Next time you may want to use an aluminium-coated beam splitter or a cube prism. You can order the latter from China for USD 20.00 on eBay. [1] Full mirrors are probably even cheaper, and industry mirrors are probably more reliable (and healthier to obtain) than cluelessly self-made ones. [1] <http://www.ebay.com/itm/beam-splitter-cube-prism-/252474353852?hash=item3ac8a4e8bc:m:mfL43XKw69GAj7qn6ZsW3Dg> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 19:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo61mi$16od$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430434 |
On 30/08/17 14:08, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> So I was right.
>>> You never made a working interferometer.
>>
>> I had to.
>
> Because you did not even have access to a highschool-level physics lab?
poor fellow, I can only feel sorry for you.
>> I made all the mirrors too and silvered them. ...nearly blew up
>> the lab when some silver fulminate exploded...just like the book said it
>> would if I left it standing....
>
> If only you had understood the experiment you were trying to repeat in the
> first place, if your story is even true. Such a waste.
>
> Next time you may want to use an aluminium-coated beam splitter or a cube
> prism. You can order the latter from China for USD 20.00 on eBay. [1] Full
> mirrors are probably even cheaper, and industry mirrors are probably more
> reliable (and healthier to obtain) than cluelessly self-made ones.
We had a very competent glass worker and a whole lab in our physics department. Both glass blowing and glass grinding
were essential subjects in the original Physics Diploma I completed.
> [1] <http://www.ebay.com/itm/beam-splitter-cube-prism-/252474353852?hash=item3ac8a4e8bc:m:mfL43XKw69GAj7qn6ZsW3Dg>
If you are so fucking clever, you might tell us what happens to each individual photon in a beam splitter...
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 19:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1763365.yKVeVyVuyW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430440 |
HGW wrote: > On 30/08/17 14:08, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> I made all the mirrors too and silvered them. ...nearly blew up >>> the lab when some silver fulminate exploded...just like the book said it >>> would if I left it standing.... >> >> If only you had understood the experiment you were trying to repeat in >> the first place, if your story is even true. Such a waste. >> >> Next time you may want to use an aluminium-coated beam splitter or a cube >> prism. You can order the latter from China for USD 20.00 on eBay. [1] >> Full mirrors are probably even cheaper, and industry mirrors are probably >> more reliable (and healthier to obtain) than cluelessly self-made ones. > > We had a very competent glass worker and a whole lab in our physics > department. Both glass blowing and glass grinding were essential subjects > in the original Physics Diploma I completed. You just said that you “nearly blew up the lab” in an attempt to produce mirrors. Had that “very competent glass worker” the day/week off? >> [1] >> [<http://www.ebay.com/itm/beam-splitter-cube-prism-/252474353852?hash=item3ac8a4e8bc:m:mfL43XKw69GAj7qn6ZsW3Dg> > > If you are so fucking clever, you might tell us what happens to each > individual photon in a beam splitter... There is no “us” with regard to you here; you stand very much alone in your defence of your crackpot ideas here. That aside, what happens to individual photons there does not matter; it is just another of your red herrings. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 09:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oo7gqo$1n5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430487 |
On 31/08/17 03:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>> We had a very competent glass worker and a whole lab in our physics
>> department. Both glass blowing and glass grinding were essential subjects
>> in the original Physics Diploma I completed.
>
> You just said that you “nearly blew up the lab” in an attempt to produce
> mirrors. Had that “very competent glass worker” the day/week off?
Hey stoopid, he made the mirrors then gave them to me to silver IN ANOTHER LAB. I wouldn't be surprised if the walls
still show signs of being splattered with black spots after the explosion....Luckily for me, I half expected it to blow
up because the book said it would so I hid behind a cupboard door while I poured some water into the solution. Only my
hand was blackened and I was able to wash that off. I was lucky not to be cut by glass. The funny thing was, nobody was
around at the time and nobody else heard it.
>>> [1]
>>> [<http://www.ebay.com/itm/beam-splitter-cube-prism-/252474353852?hash=item3ac8a4e8bc:m:mfL43XKw69GAj7qn6ZsW3Dg>
>>
>> If you are so fucking clever, you might tell us what happens to each
>> individual photon in a beam splitter...
>
> There is no “us” with regard to you here; you stand very much alone in your
> defence of your crackpot ideas here. That aside, what happens to individual
> photons there does not matter; it is just another of your red herrings.
This shows how little you know about physics. What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery. One theory
is that it travels at c between atoms but is delayed slightly when being absorbed and re-emitted....and that accounts
for the slowing. My own opinion is that fields inside matter are somewhat like classical aether and light does tend to
behave a bit like a Maxwellian traveling wave when inside a field....but it still retains particle-like properties.
>
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 02:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <13343467.tv2OnDr8pf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430514 |
HGW wrote: > […] What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery. No, as I have showed, it is not. It is only a mystery *to you* because you keep arguing from your giant ignorance. -- 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 08:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooco14$1ccr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430521 |
On 31/08/17 10:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> […] What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery.
>
> No, as I have showed, it is not. It is only a mystery
> *to you* because you keep arguing from your giant ignorance.
Go on then. Tell us all about what happens to it. Why does light appear to slow down in glass?
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 02:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5840661.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430759 |
HGW wrote: > On 31/08/17 10:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> […] What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery. >> No, as I have showed, it is not. It is only a mystery >> *to you* because you keep arguing from your giant ignorance. > > Go on then. Tell us all about what happens to it. Why does light appear to > slow down in glass? I have already pointed you to the explanation. You are not paying attention. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HW@home.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 08:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oofd4v$1dc0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #430775 |
On 02/09/17 10:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> On 31/08/17 10:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> HGW wrote:
>>>> […] What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery.
>>> No, as I have showed, it is not. It is only a mystery
>>> *to you* because you keep arguing from your giant ignorance.
>>
>> Go on then. Tell us all about what happens to it. Why does light appear to
>> slow down in glass?
>
> I have already pointed you to the explanation. You are not paying
> attention.
In other words you haven't a clue....
--
HGW, DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 18:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3219913.hdfAi7Kttb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #430859 |
HGW wrote: > On 02/09/17 10:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HGW wrote: >>> On 31/08/17 10:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HGW wrote: >>>>> […] What happens to light inside a medium is still a major mystery. >>>> No, as I have showed, it is not. It is only a mystery >>>> *to you* because you keep arguing from your giant ignorance. >>> Go on then. Tell us all about what happens to it. Why does light appear >>> to slow down in glass? >> I have already pointed you to the explanation. You are not paying ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> attention. > > In other words you haven't a clue.... In other words, you either don’t want to know, or can’t read, or are not smart enough to understand what you read. Take your pick. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web