Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 17:42 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 15:36 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:58 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:34 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-11 21:41 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 05:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:04 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:53 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 08:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 08:49 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:25 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:37 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 16:38 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 17:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 23:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 09:43 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:40 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 12:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 22:12 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 18:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 04:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 05:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 05:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 06:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:35 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-14 06:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:36 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-16 07:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-18 03:21 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:48 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:52 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-15 07:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:33 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-15 21:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:07 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-17 05:59 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 18:58 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-18 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-19 05:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-20 05:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-21 05:47 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:13 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-22 06:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:56 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-23 14:55 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-22 06:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 15:52 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 21:22 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:07 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 09:55 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 17:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 12:49 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-25 20:36 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-25 22:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:42 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:11 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:57 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:08 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:15 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:16 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:17 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 17:55 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-28 18:38 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-29 11:48 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:53 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:22 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-28 19:40 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:39 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 16:11 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-24 23:10 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-25 07:03 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:03 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:02 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:14 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-21 14:27 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 21:56 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:21 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 11:18 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 20:43 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 19:41 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 19:46 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 19:11 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 21:16 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:57 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 22:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:27 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:43 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-15 23:32 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:12 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:28 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 01:47 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 10:09 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 06:53 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-17 19:09 +0000
The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-17 21:12 +0100
Re: The speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:51 -0600
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:02 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-18 22:14 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-19 22:25 +0100
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 06:10 -0800
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:22 +0000
Re: The speed of light (was: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29.) Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-20 17:26 +0000
Re: The speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-21 02:32 +0100
Re: The speed of light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 09:39 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-17 14:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 14:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-17 22:35 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 09:14 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:58 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 05:33 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 05:48 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:20 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-19 06:30 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 06:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:44 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:31 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:23 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 00:05 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-20 17:44 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 19:46 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 23:44 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:17 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-20 15:02 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-20 22:34 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-20 23:16 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-21 10:04 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:08 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:40 -0600
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-21 18:52 +0100
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:04 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:12 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 09:19 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 20:39 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 20:50 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:46 +0000
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-17 11:17 -0800
Re: The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter 29. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:30 +0000
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 16:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f4ed0d9-db19-40a8-b4c0-17e2a35760a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374852 |
On January 26, 2016, Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: > On 1/25/2016 7:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > To accelerate an experimental platform to high speed is still > > beyond today's technological achievement. <shrug> > > So Koobee, first you say that experiments ought to tell the Lorentz > transformation and the Larmor transformation apart, and then you say > that experiments to tell them apart can't be done. Koobee Wublee never said it can't be done. It is just beyond today's technology. If you want to criticize Koobee Wublee, at least read what Koobee Wublee has written. You are just a bigot. <shrug> > Can you please settle on what exactly you'd like to claim before > opening your mouth? The problem is entire of Odd Bodkin aka PD. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af4f6a53-2f49-427b-b9aa-d69533f6fad4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374776 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 25 stycznia 2016 00:52:43 UTC+1 użytkownik PD napisał: > Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. > Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. Your fellow idiot Tom sometimes admit - there is a little difference. Coordinate clocks should be synchronized by Lorentz, and unsynchronized by The Shit. And in the reality they are synchronized. Check it at GPS. And say goodbay to your relativity. |There is therefore no experimental evidence to date that would favor Lorentz's |theory over relativity. Meanwhile, relativity makes a number of testable |predictions that Lorentz's ether theory is completely mute about You mean general relativity, of course? And, unfortunately, these predictions are not even consistent. |At least, it would be to anyone with scientific ability and mindset. Yeah. Obviously, whoever oppose The Shit, has no scientific ability. And is NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!! CRANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REALITY DENIER!!!!!!! etc, etc, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa5446cd-6022-4ff4-ba53-8858e9af5841@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374776 |
On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, PD wrote: > Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. PD (AKA Bodkin) This is not a valid statement.....SR and LET have the same math and therefore they have the same testable consequences There is therefore no experimental evidence to date that would favor Lorentz's theory over relativity. >Meanwhile, relativity makes a number of testable predictions that Lorentz's >ether theory is completely mute about, offering no prediction at all. Examples please. Assertion is not a valid argument. The successful scope of relativity being larger than Lorentz's theory, relativity is naturally favored. At least, it would be to anyone with scientific ability and mindset. No they both have the same math and thus the same scope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 11:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n85khr$19od$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374790 |
On 1/25/2016 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, PD wrote: >> Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. > > PD (AKA Bodkin) > This is not a valid statement.....SR and LET have the same math and therefore they have > the same testable consequences As I said, Lorentz's ether provides NO testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. > > There is therefore no experimental evidence to date that would favor Lorentz's theory over relativity. > >> Meanwhile, relativity makes a number of testable predictions that Lorentz's >ether theory is completely >> mute about, offering no prediction at all. > > Examples please. Assertion is not a valid argument. The boost-invariance of the strong nuclear reaction, for one. Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. The conversion of mass to energy and vice versa, for another. Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. That's just two to start. > > The successful scope of relativity being larger than Lorentz's theory, relativity is naturally favored. > At least, it would be to anyone with scientific ability and mindset. > > No they both have the same math and thus the same scope. > Not true, Ken. PD is right. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0d4cce4-cf69-44ee-a1e4-ed4a9add3d20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374800 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:03:58 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/25/2016 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, PD wrote: > >> Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. > > > > PD (AKA Bodkin) > > This is not a valid statement.....SR and LET have the same math and therefore they have > > the same testable consequences > > As I said, Lorentz's ether provides NO testable consequences that are > distinct from relativity. Certainly there are testable consequences between SR and LET. For example: SR predicts mutual time dilation for every SR inertial observer and LET does not such prediction....LET says that from the ether frame a clock moving wrt such frame will run slow. > > > > > There is therefore no experimental evidence to date that would favor Lorentz's theory over relativity. > > > >> Meanwhile, relativity makes a number of testable predictions that Lorentz's >ether theory is completely > >> mute about, offering no prediction at all. > > > > Examples please. Assertion is not a valid argument. > > The boost-invariance of the strong nuclear reaction, for one. > Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. > The conversion of mass to energy and vice versa, for another. > Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. > That's just two to start. That's because mass does not converting to energy....strong force is due to decoupling of the stacked interactions of the nucleus. > > > > The successful scope of relativity being larger than Lorentz's theory, relativity is naturally favored. > > At least, it would be to anyone with scientific ability and mindset. > > > > No they both have the same math and thus the same scope. > > > > Not true, Ken. PD is right. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 08:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87uvt$102v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374853 |
On 1/26/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:03:58 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/25/2016 9:03 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-5, PD wrote: >>>> Lotentz's ether provides no testable consequences that are distinct from relativity. >>> >>> PD (AKA Bodkin) >>> This is not a valid statement.....SR and LET have the same math and therefore they have >>> the same testable consequences >> >> As I said, Lorentz's ether provides NO testable consequences that are >> distinct from relativity. > > Certainly there are testable consequences between SR and LET. For example: SR predicts > mutual time dilation for every SR inertial observer and LET does not such prediction.... > LET says that from the ether frame a clock moving wrt such frame will run slow. First of all, be sure of what LET says before you make such claims. Second, then suggest an experiment that distinguishes SR from LET. >> >>> >>> There is therefore no experimental evidence to date that would favor Lorentz's theory over relativity. >>> >>>> Meanwhile, relativity makes a number of testable predictions that Lorentz's >ether theory is completely >>>> mute about, offering no prediction at all. >>> >>> Examples please. Assertion is not a valid argument. >> >> The boost-invariance of the strong nuclear reaction, for one. >> Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. >> The conversion of mass to energy and vice versa, for another. >> Experimentally confirmed. Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for this. >> That's just two to start. > > That's because mass does not converting to energy. Tell that to the survivors of Hiroshima. > ...strong force is due to > decoupling of the stacked interactions of the nucleus. Regardless, the strong interaction is boost-invariant, experimentally verified. This is something Lorentz ether theory has no accounting for. >>> >>> The successful scope of relativity being larger than Lorentz's theory, relativity is naturally favored. >>> At least, it would be to anyone with scientific ability and mindset. >>> >>> No they both have the same math and thus the same scope. >>> >> >> Not true, Ken. PD is right. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7qpsu$hmg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374576 |
kenseto wrote: >> The experiments you mention made NO assumption of an ether. > > That's the problem.....in place of absolute motion in the E-Matrix, they > dreamt up: collapsed wave-function, virtual particles, > entanglement....etc. Spacetime is Aether. (archaic einsteinized terminology)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jn27$1ksj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #374295 |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:03:34 -0800, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 1:58:57 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:59:30 -0800, kenseto wrote: >> >> > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:33:40 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> Ken, you have a beautiful theory based on the existence of an >> >> >> aether. >> >> >> There is none...so I am not at all impressed. >> >> > >> >> > Assertion is not a valid argument. >> >> >> >> Show me evidence of your one universal aether. >> > >> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> I can't see any evidence there. > > Then you are blind. There is no evidence that a universal aether exists. Never was any and never will be. >> But there could be local aetherlike regions where there are sgtrog >> fields. > > Fields are distortions in the aether. That is a gross oversimplification at best. I agree that fields have something to do with something else that might be remotely referred to as 'aether', for want of a better word. At present, physics knows nothing about the actual physical makeup of fields and probably wont learn anything while it is totally preoccupied with Einstein's shit theory. >> Note, nobody has performed a photoelectric experiment using a moving >> source. The closest is the Pound/Rebka experiment which strongly >> supports the view that variation in light speed also change its energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 09:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78eed$1eih$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373908 |
On 1/14/2016 2:43 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:17:22 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions >>> L/ >>> T). >> >> Who says? > > I say. Then my next question: Who cares? > > NOW here is NOW everywhere. > Now plus 1 second here is NOW plus one second everywhere. That's what YOU say, but nobody cares. > > Only a deluded SciFi fanatic would claim that time was dependent on > movement. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 11:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d739ad5e-d665-479e-a6eb-30fe9f18347f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373908 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:43:12 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:17:22 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > >> Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions > >> L/ > >> T). > > > > Who says? > > I say. > > NOW here is NOW everywhere. > Now plus 1 second here is NOW plus one second everywhere. > > Only a deluded SciFi fanatic would claim that time was dependent on > movement. This is just a random claim. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n78toe$ruo$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373966 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d739ad5e-d665-479e-a6eb-30fe9f18347f@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:43:12 AM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:17:22 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 1/13/2016 12:53 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > >> Crap. Time is universal and cannot be affected by movement (dimensions > >> L/ > >> T). > > > > Who says? > > I say. > > NOW here is NOW everywhere. > Now plus 1 second here is NOW plus one second everywhere. > > Only a deluded SciFi fanatic would claim that time was dependent on > movement. |This is just a random claim. Said guru of 2dimensional ants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7353585.CizQh2yrCR@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #373842 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any claim >>> that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is somehow >>> affected by itself. >> Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer >> has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are >> not moving relative to each other. > > Crap. Time is universal No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And that changes everything. > and cannot be affected by movement So *you* say without substantiation. Let us see if we can find out together, step by step, if this statement can hold true. Do you agree that, in the same medium, the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference? > (dimensions L/T). What would be “L” and “T”, respectively? PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n78qdt$oae$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373962 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:7353585.CizQh2yrCR@PointedEars.de... |No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And that |changes everything. In the imagination of a bunch of insane fanatic morons, only. And even not in their Shit. > and cannot be affected by movement |Do you agree that, in the same medium, the speed of light is constant in all |inertial frames of reference? Of course! In all inertial frames of reference. I. e. nowhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n78rsp$9eb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373962 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Crap. Time is universal > > No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And > that changes everything. Prove it. Without the shadow of a doubt. Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary proofs. You are ordinary only. Actually, only a half of an ordinary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4702955.7X2obpd6CP@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #373965 |
Carmine Portacio wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Crap. Time is universal
>> No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And
>> that changes everything.
>
> Prove it. Without the shadow of a doubt.
Prove what, exactly?
> Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary proofs.
The proper and full quote is:
“What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like
to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is
supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
—Carl Sagan (1934–1996) (in: “Encyclopedia Galactica”, episode 12)
And you of all … things better do not quote it, ’nym-shifting troll
(*PLONK*).
That the speed of light (in the same medium, e.g. vacuum) is a universal
constant may have been an extraordinary claim during the lifetime of
Michelson and Morley, but not now, more than a century later where modern
technology, including the one that allows you to haunt this newsgroup, is
*working* based on the special and general theory of relativity (the
constancy of the speed of light is the first postulate of the former), and
theories based on those. What more evidence could one possibly need?
Nowadays (since at least 1983) we are so certain of this that we no longer
define the unit of length, the metre, primarily in terms of a fraction of
the distance from the equator to the North Pole (from 1793 to 1889), the
metre prototype (from 1889 to 1960), or the wavelengths of a certain
emission line of krypton-86 (from 1960 to 1983), but in terms of the speed
of light: 1 m(etre) is the distance that light travels in vacuum in
1/299'792'458 of a second. [1]
PointedEars
___________
[1] 17th General Conference on Weights and Measures (1983), Resolution 1.
<http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/>
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n795jl$sib$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373962 |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:41:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any >>>> claim that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is >>>> somehow affected by itself. >>> Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer >>> has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are >>> not moving relative to each other. >> >> Crap. Time is universal > > No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And > that changes everything. There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically equal the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light relative to an observer can have virtually any value. >> and cannot be affected by movement > > So *you* say without substantiation. Let us see if we can find out > together, step by step, if this statement can hold true. > > Do you agree that, in the same medium, the speed of light is constant in > all inertial frames of reference? When light travels through a medium such as glass, an entirely new set of rules apply. >> (dimensions L/T). > > What would be “L” and “T”, respectively? > > > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n796fp$skd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373992 |
Henry Wilson wrote: >> No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And >> that changes everything. > > There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically > equal the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light > relative to an observer can have virtually any value. This probably is to be correct. For instance a Green Laser travels faster than a Red Laser, as it has more momentum, being more dangerous when it hits a target (you need protection glasses). An UV laser has an even higher empirical momentum. All tested with data in Laboratories, as demanded by the Scientific Method.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01e79cb3-ab30-4c36-b333-113c3842810e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373992 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:57:13 PM UTC-8, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:41:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Henry Wilson wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> Henry Wilson wrote: > >>>> Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any > >>>> claim that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is > >>>> somehow affected by itself. > >>> Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer > >>> has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are > >>> not moving relative to each other. > >> > >> Crap. Time is universal > > > > No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And > > that changes everything. > > There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically equal > the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light relative to > an observer can have virtually any value. Except it has never been observed (assuming inertial observer, in random coordinates you can have any number you want, of course). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1563688.IQaSGgdbU3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #373992 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:41:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:07:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>>> Naturally I expected this kind of reaction from the ratpack. Any >>>>> claim that TIME is somehow affected by velocity means that TIME is >>>>> somehow affected by itself. >>>> Yes. The point is that there is not one time, but that every observer >>>> has their own time. Times between observers only agree when both are >>>> not moving relative to each other. >>> Crap. Time is universal >> No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And >> that changes everything. > > There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically equal > the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light relative to > an observer can have virtually any value. That is obviously incorrect because the motion of the source of light towards or away from an observer is for that observer, without a further reference (frame), indistinguishable from a motion of that observer towards or away from the source of light. It is also incorrect because you have it backwards: First the speed of light was measured (Galilei 1620, Rømer 1676, Huygens 1678), then more measurements showed that it was constant in the same medium (Bradley 1728, Arago 1810/1838, Wheatstone 1834, Arago 1838, Fizeau 1849, Foucault 1851, Cornu 1875, Michelson 1879/1881, Michelson & Morley 1887, Hertz 1888, Michelson 1926, Essen 1947, Froome 1958, Boulder@NBS 1973), and after it had been established by many of those experiments to be constant in the same medium, a symbol for it had emerged. For example, JFYI, Einstein started using “c” instead of “V” in 1908: Einstein, Albert (1908a). „Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen“ (“On the principle of relativity and the conclusions drawn from it”). In: „Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik“ 4: 411–462, Bibcode:1908JRE.....4..411E <http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf> Einstein, Albert & Laub, Jakob (1908b). „Über die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen für bewegte Körper“ (“On the electromagnetic base equations for moving bodies”). Annalen der Physik 331 (8): 532–540, Bibcode:1908AnP...331..532E, doi:10.1002/andp.19083310806. <http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1908_26_532-540.pdf> >>> and cannot be affected by movement >> So *you* say without substantiation. Let us see if we can find out >> together, step by step, if this statement can hold true. >> >> Do you agree that, in the same medium, the speed of light is constant in >> all inertial frames of reference? > > When light travels through a medium such as glass, an entirely new set of > rules apply. You have not answered the question, and you have not substantiated your claims. Again. >>> (dimensions L/T). >> >> What would be “L” and “T”, respectively? You have not answered that question either. PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7bp5d$124c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373999 |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:30:11 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> No, the speed of light is the universal constant here, instead. And >>> that changes everything. >> >> There is a universal constant called 'c'. It happens to numerically >> equal the speed of light relative to its source. The speed of light >> relative to an observer can have virtually any value. > > That is obviously incorrect because the motion of the source of light > towards or away from an observer is for that observer, without a further > reference (frame), indistinguishable from a motion of that observer > towards or away from the source of light. Light has only one reference for its speed....its own source. How could anything in Andromeda affect the speed of my light here? > It is also incorrect because you have it backwards: First the speed of > light was measured (Galilei 1620, Rømer 1676, Huygens 1678), then more > measurements showed that it was constant in the same medium (Bradley > 1728, > Arago 1810/1838, Wheatstone 1834, Arago 1838, Fizeau 1849, Foucault > 1851, > Cornu 1875, Michelson 1879/1881, Michelson & Morley 1887, Hertz 1888, > Michelson 1926, Essen 1947, Froome 1958, Boulder@NBS 1973), and after it > had been established by many of those experiments to be constant in the > same medium, a symbol for it had emerged. > Correct. TWLS always equals c, as expected by BaTh. > For example, JFYI, Einstein started using “c” instead of “V” in 1908: > > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web