Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418080 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 16:44 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ernest Schillaci <lgunse@nteeqea.gl> - 2017-05-04 18:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-04 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 16:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 18:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 14:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 18:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 19:12 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 20:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:51 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 16:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 09:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 17:14 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-05 20:38 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:16 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 21:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 23:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-07 22:04 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 12:39 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-10 21:16 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:40 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 16:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:50 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 22:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 03:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 11:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 15:07 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:31 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:53 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 23:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:49 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-19 10:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 14:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-20 05:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 10:12 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 15:22 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:41 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-19 16:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 09:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:36 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 12:54 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:30 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 11:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 21:05 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 14:22 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:44 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 13:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:28 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 11:51 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 05:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:26 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 21:23 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:13 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:33 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:17 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 20:46 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:52 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-18 23:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 20:58 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-19 22:05 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 10:47 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 12:01 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 13:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-11 08:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-11 11:16 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-12 03:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-11 22:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:34 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 23:07 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:06 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 08:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-06 15:58 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 15:39 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-06 09:37 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 19:16 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-07 20:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:28 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 14:17 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:40 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 00:08 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-10 09:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:36 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 01:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:20 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-10 11:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 05:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:02 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:07 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 08:11 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 17:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-10 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Jean-Pierre Framboise <nctede@pmdcehr.cc> - 2017-05-10 16:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 09:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-10 09:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 12:36 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:52 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 16:48 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 13:33 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 08:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:53 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 07:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 12:59 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 13:32 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 13:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:04 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 14:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:29 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 21:43 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 06:58 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:28 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-05 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Prijzen Sörözésekre <ouwu@wueidewliiut.te> - 2017-05-05 22:46 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-06 16:19 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:47 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 18:00 +0100
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 10:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-10 01:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:45 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 09:14 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:30 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:01 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:36 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-07 16:44 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 09:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-05-08 09:36 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:13 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-08 12:49 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:20 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:31 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:05 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-09 11:35 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:02 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 23:07 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate thailao2558@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 04:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-05-08 21:41 +1000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 10:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 19:52 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-07 14:00 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 14:35 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-07 23:40 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:44 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-07 11:10 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:43 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-05-06 08:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 09:19 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-07 11:52 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 11:03 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:25 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:18 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-05 14:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:25 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-05 20:33 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-05-06 07:17 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-06 10:38 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:41 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 12:59 -0700
My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:43 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-05-14 19:28 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 20:42 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 10:20 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:27 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 16:49 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 18:54 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 17:37 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 20:57 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 19:15 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:26 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:56 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-15 15:38 -0500
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:17 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-15 21:39 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:57 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:40 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-16 18:05 +0000
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 14:26 -0700
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-05-15 19:25 +0200
Re: My paper about Einstein's Second Postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:07 -0500
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45b972a6-46e0-473a-8ab3-4e25a0a76dab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418732 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:17:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin > > > >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > > > > > No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > > > [...] > > > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > > > > again: > > > > > > > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > > > > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > > > > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > > > > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > > > > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > > > > > YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > > Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN > > > ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how > > > > > > ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a > > > substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- > > > how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with > > > respect to it? > > > > > > The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes > > > BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled > > > "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would > > > would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed > > > the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth > > > relative to the ether. > > > > > > There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the > > > SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... > > > > > > When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you > > > possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of > > > physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about > > > everything you say is flat-out WRONG. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong. > > You forget one ingredient which is in fact at the root of the problem: you > have to satisfy certain prerequisites(*) to get the ticket to play (let > alone discuss anything). That's the reason no expert will want to even talk > to you, it's a waste of everybody's time. > > (*)I.e., you have to know this stuff first. > > -- > Jan But that's NOT true. I just have to find "experts" who agree with me. Last week, I found a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany who endorsed my Second Postulate paper for arXiv.org. He not only agreed with me, he pointed me to a whole organization where scientists are fighting against the "status quo" where people are prevented from publishing anything that contradicts established scientific teachings (i.e., mathematical crap). This Google group is simply dominated by mathematicians. I need to find a group that is more concerned with SCIENCE than mathematics. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 15:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeqjah$16s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418743 |
On 5/8/17 2:49 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> You forget one ingredient which is in fact at the root of the problem: you >> have to satisfy certain prerequisites(*) to get the ticket to play (let >> alone discuss anything). That's the reason no expert will want to even talk >> to you, it's a waste of everybody's time. >> >> (*)I.e., you have to know this stuff first. >> >> -- >> Jan > > But that's NOT true. I just have to find "experts" who agree with me. Last week, > I found a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany who endorsed my Second Postulate > paper for arXiv.org. He not only agreed with me, he pointed me to a whole organization > where scientists are fighting against the "status quo" where people are prevented from > publishing anything that contradicts established scientific teachings (i.e., mathematical crap). > > This Google group is simply dominated by mathematicians. I need to find a group that is > more concerned with SCIENCE than mathematics. > > Ed > Ed, you can't ride on the coattails of physicists who agree with you. You have to know something about the subject. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d661b3af-6e5a-4d0e-bc6a-b856e2ac841e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418743 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:49:40 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:17:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 5/7/17 5/7/17 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > >>> I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin > > > > >>> Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > > > > > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > > > > [...] > > > > > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key passage > > > > > again: > > > > > > > > > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the > > > > > beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam > > > > > of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. > > > > > In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, > > > > > depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam." > > > > > > > > YOU CANNOT READ. Or at least YOU DID NOT READ THIS BOOK. > > > > > > > > Just read the sentence before that quote and see that Gardner is discussing AN > > > > ETHER THEORY that PRE-DATED relativity. This is not SR at all. He is explaining how > > > > > > > > ... if the ether is an invisible, nonmaterial substance -- a > > > > substance that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted -- > > > > how can the movement of, say, the earth ever be measured with > > > > respect to it? > > > > > > > > The table of Contents of the book gives a GREAT BIG HINT -- this passage comes > > > > BEFORE the Special Theory of Relativity is introduced. It is in a section titled > > > > "The Michelson-Morley Experiment", and if you had read that chapter you would > > > > would know that this passage is the beginning of describing why they performed > > > > the experiment, and why they thought they could measure the speed of the earth > > > > relative to the ether. > > > > > > > > There is another GREAT BIG HINT -- in the passage you quoted Gardner uses the > > > > SUBJUNCTIVE mood.... > > > > > > > > When you cannot even get very basic reading comprehension correct, how can you > > > > possibly expect to be able to describe a subtle and complex theory of > > > > physics???? Those of us who do understand relativity know that just about > > > > everything you say is flat-out WRONG. > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong. > > > > You forget one ingredient which is in fact at the root of the problem: you > > have to satisfy certain prerequisites(*) to get the ticket to play (let > > alone discuss anything). That's the reason no expert will want to even talk > > to you, it's a waste of everybody's time. > > > > (*)I.e., you have to know this stuff first. > > > > -- > > Jan > > But that's NOT true. I just have to find "experts" who agree with me. Yes, there are some idiots in the trade, it's well-known. Look for example at the reviewers who accepted Harold White's totally incompetent papers on the warp drive metric for publication in Gen. Rel. Grav. > Last week, I found a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany who endorsed my Second Postulate paper for arXiv.org. He not only agreed with me, he pointed me to a whole organization where scientists are fighting against the "status quo" where people are prevented from publishing anything that contradicts established scientific teachings (i.e., mathematical crap). Nonsense. If this is true, the guy is an idiot. > This Google group is simply dominated by mathematicians. I need to find a group that is more concerned with SCIENCE than mathematics. Oh stop it. It's the standard crank line: "I don't understand X, so I'm going to declare X unimportant". Good luck. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeqjug$1vq9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418756 |
JanPB wrote: >> But that's NOT true. I just have to find "experts" who agree with me. > > Yes, there are some idiots in the trade, it's well-known. Look for > example at the reviewers who accepted Harold White's totally incompetent > papers on the warp drive metric for publication in Gen. Rel. Grav. You are terrible anti-science. Not even people working daily in space exploration would convince you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f647982f-5e4b-46ef-a5ef-88e087f4de39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418760 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-7, Lissa Hermes wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> But that's NOT true. I just have to find "experts" who agree with me. > > > > Yes, there are some idiots in the trade, it's well-known. Look for > > example at the reviewers who accepted Harold White's totally incompetent > > papers on the warp drive metric for publication in Gen. Rel. Grav. > > You are terrible anti-science. Not even people working daily in space > exploration would convince you. It's not a question of _convincing_ anyone. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb77fd45-9f79-4eac-b544-7d51ed8933c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418789 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 maja 2017 01:31:07 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > You are terrible anti-science. Not even people working daily in space > > exploration would convince you. > > It's not a question of _convincing_ anyone. It'sa question of being a fanatic, arrogant idiot that "knows".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oes9id$onb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418789 |
JanPB wrote: >> > Yes, there are some idiots in the trade, it's well-known. Look for >> > example at the reviewers who accepted Harold White's totally >> > incompetent papers on the warp drive metric for publication in Gen. >> > Rel. Grav. >> >> You are terrible anti-science. Not even people working daily in space >> exploration would convince you. > > It's not a question of _convincing_ anyone. Hey listen, I might be poor, but I'm not stupid. Do you hear anything about moon landing in here? No. Why, because his brain is empty of moon landings. Specifically, no recordings of moon landing anywhere located in his brain. The man is doing his best, heroically, but no moon. What you do, I guess, is going by the name of "willingly not listening". "Moon Hoax Buzz Aldrin Simulation mirrored Brugga jugga" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q89tPXcTyI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 08:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oerlri$t75$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #418743 |
Dne 08/05/2017 v 21:49 Ed Lake napsal(a): > This Google group is simply dominated by mathematicians. I need to find a group that is more concerned with SCIENCE than mathematics. > There is hardly any mathematician in this group. They are just physicists who know the math and the theories better that you. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 23:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b28c9326-4612-43cd-a598-6741ae4ba095@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418814 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 maja 2017 08:02:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > They are just physicists > who know the math and the theories better that you. And reject the oldest and one of most successful of them, because "common sense is a collection of prejudices."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thailao2558@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9bed17ea-137f-445e-ae5b-a15001531c4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418743 |
Ed Lake wrote:
> I just have to find "experts" who agree with me.
I recommend you consider posting your stuff at the following online site, where you may well find "experts" of the kind you seek. That long-running site has physics cranks of various levels and abilities, and you're likely to find common ground with some of the people there.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Subjects/Relativity%20Theory
> This Google group is simply dominated by mathematicians.
By far, most posters here are neither mathematicians nor physicists. You *really* don't have a clue. It's actually quite funny that people here are interested in trying to correct your misconceptions. Not me. I like you just the way you are. Have fun tilting at windmills.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 21:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oeplgg$8ba$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418532 |
On 08/05/17 03:01, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:30:55 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: > Here's a quote from page 16 of "Relativity Simply Explained: > > -------------- If a bullet is fired straight ahead from the front of > a moving jet plane, the ground speed of the bullet is faster than if > it were fired from a gun held by someone on the ground. The ground > speed of the bullet fired from the plane is obtained by adding the > speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet. In the case of light, > however, the velocity of a beam is not affected by the speed of the > object that sends out the beam. This was strongly indicated by > experiments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and > has since been amply confirmed, especially by recent tests on the > decay of neutral pi mesons. It has never been confirmed. The pions stopped befroe they decayed...besides, If an object breaks into two pieces. Those pieces will carry on at the same speed s the object One famous test was made by Russian > astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the rotating > sun. One edge of our sun is always moving toward us, the other edge > always moving away. It was found that light from both edges travels > to the earth with the same velocity.. That proves nothing. According to BaTh, light speeds are rapidly unified by strong fields and intense EM. Individual photons don't remain individual photons for very long. They merge into one big energy flow whilst retaining their individual intrinsic wavelengths. All light leaves the vicinity of a star at very nearly the same speed. Similar tests had been made > decades earlier with light from revolving double stars. Regardless of > the motion of its source, the speed of light through empty space is > always the same: about 299,800 kilometers (186,300 miles) per > second. The OWLS of starlight has never been directly measured. By contrast, a majority of variable star curves Light can be accurately matched on the assumption that the stars are really perfectly stable but are moving in small orbits due to planetary motion. Their light moves at c+v towards Earth, causing progressive shuffling of its photons during travel and gives the impression that the star's brightness is varying periodically. It is only in truly empty space that light is 100% ballistic...the presence of fields and matter, no matter how rare, will slowly unify the speeds of all light moving in a particular direction. So while light from opposite sides of the sun would be expected to leave its vicinity at c relative to the sun itself, that speed relative to a distant observer will vary with time as the sun wobbles around its barycentre with Jupiter and the other planets. > Do you see how this fact provides a means by which a scientist (we > will call him the observer) could calculate his own absolute motion? Sorry Ed, you are apparently not familiar with 19th century physics. The MMX was supposed to do exactly just that...and failed. That is why Fitzgerald and Lorentz put forward their contraction idea, which would cause all measurements of OWLS to produce the answer c irrespective of the absolute speed of the apparatus. Einstein's P2 uses that fact to establish observer independence of light speed BUT only after light from all sources has been unified by the aether. Einstein simply reiterated LET but merely replaced the aether's main role with the SOURCE independence claim in the postulate. He offered no alternative explanation as to how unification was to be achieved. . > That is in full agreement with what I've been saying. Here is the key > passage again: > > "An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should > find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer > moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him > with a velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the > velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on the observer's > motion relative to the beam." Go back 150 years Ed. You're hopelessly out of date. > Ed >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e8fe8f6-5b59-49c5-8948-1b3bdfeb4e14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418526 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:30:55 AM UTC-5, Python wrote: > Ed Lake, unseferable idiot, wrote: > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: > >>> Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > >>> physics. > >> > >> Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who > >> understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he > >> would recognize his own errors.) > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). > > Keep Einstein free of your crap, Mr Lake. Please > > > The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate > > paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. > > So you've found another kook. So what? > > > > I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, > > which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > No. > > > And, of course, Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" > > agrees with what I've been saying. > > No. Here's a quote from Chapter 9 of Einstein's book: ------- Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears. We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment. ------------- A couple key passages: "Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment." Both say the same thing: Time is different for a moving object than for a stationary object. The length of a second is different. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oenmtn$1e3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418537 |
Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:17 schreef Ed Lake: [snip] > Here's a quote from Chapter 9 of Einstein's book: > > ------- Events which are simultaneous with reference to the > embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice > versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate > system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the > reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no > meaning in a statement of the time of an event. > > Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always > tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an > absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of > motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this > assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of > simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict > between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the > principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears. > > We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, > which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that > the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second > relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with > respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to > the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular > occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal > to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment > (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in > walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time > which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment. > ------------- > > A couple key passages: > > "Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular > time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of > time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an > event." > > "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the > distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to > one second as judged from the embankment." > > Both say the same thing: Time is different for a moving object than > for a stationary object. The length of a second is different. > > Ed > And then read on. There's more, idiot. Something about the "length of a meter". Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06360851-24b4-4c36-b119-8109dad5b5fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418555 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:52:59 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:17 schreef Ed Lake: > > [snip] > > > Here's a quote from Chapter 9 of Einstein's book: > > > > ------- Events which are simultaneous with reference to the > > embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice > > versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate > > system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the > > reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no > > meaning in a statement of the time of an event. > > > > Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always > > tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an > > absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of > > motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this > > assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of > > simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict > > between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the > > principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears. > > > > We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, > > which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that > > the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second > > relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with > > respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to > > the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular > > occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal > > to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment > > (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in > > walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time > > which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment. > > ------------- > > > > A couple key passages: > > > > "Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular > > time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of > > time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an > > event." > > > > "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the > > distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to > > one second as judged from the embankment." > > > > Both say the same thing: Time is different for a moving object than > > for a stationary object. The length of a second is different. > > > > Ed > > > > And then read on. There's more, idiot. Something about > the "length of a meter". > > Dirk Vdm Yeah, I read that. But, he's not saying that the length of a meter changes, he's saying that the amount of TIME it takes to travel one meter changes. His explanations are really convoluted, which makes it difficult to quote any part of what he says. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2221f789-137f-4bfd-a429-a3d7ddab1ee2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418608 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:52:59 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:17 schreef Ed Lake: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Here's a quote from Chapter 9 of Einstein's book: > > > > > > ------- Events which are simultaneous with reference to the > > > embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice > > > versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate > > > system) has its own particular time ; unless we are told the > > > reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no > > > meaning in a statement of the time of an event. > > > > > > Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always > > > tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an > > > absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of > > > motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this > > > assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of > > > simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict > > > between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the > > > principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears. > > > > > > We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, > > > which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that > > > the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second > > > relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with > > > respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to > > > the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular > > > occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal > > > to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment > > > (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in > > > walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time > > > which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment. > > > ------------- > > > > > > A couple key passages: > > > > > > "Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular > > > time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of > > > time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an > > > event." > > > > > > "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the > > > distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to > > > one second as judged from the embankment." > > > > > > Both say the same thing: Time is different for a moving object than > > > for a stationary object. The length of a second is different. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > And then read on. There's more, idiot. Something about > > the "length of a meter". > > > > Dirk Vdm > > Yeah, I read that. But, he's not saying that the length of a meter changes, he's saying that the amount of TIME it takes to travel one meter changes. > > His explanations are really convoluted, which makes it difficult to quote any part of what he says. > > Ed Space Time "IS" Convoluted https://goo.gl/photos/xM8yse8i6LGPmdcp9 https://goo.gl/photos/9F6kurhKZUq1DL179 https://goo.gl/photos/VxCJhWkNSqrkNN649 https://goo.gl/photos/3BgcVEAjM4sLQcz6A https://goo.gl/photos/6YQdc1aauKPe21g87 http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeo45f$6cd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418608 |
On 5/7/17 4:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > His explanations are really convoluted, which makes it difficult to quote any part of what he says. I'm sorry, Ed, but this is what we're talking about with you. You don't read the complete text. You see a part that seems to support what you want to say, and then you STOP reading. When you are invited to read the rest of what's said, you say you cannot follow it and so you decide it must not be relevant. You are CHERRY PICKING out of context from your sources. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oeo493$73u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418608 |
Op 07-mei-2017 om 23:00 schreef Ed Lake: > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:52:59 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel > wrote: >> Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:17 schreef Ed Lake: >> >> [snip] [snip] >>> "Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own >>> particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which >>> the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement >>> of the time of an event." >>> >>> "Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels >>> the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is >>> equal to one second as judged from the embankment." >>> >>> Both say the same thing: Time is different for a moving object >>> than for a stationary object. The length of a second is >>> different. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> And then read on. There's more, idiot. Something about the "length >> of a meter". >> >> Dirk Vdm > > Yeah, I read that. But, he's not saying that the length of a meter > changes,he's saying that the amount of TIME it takes to travel one > meter changes. So you did NOT read it. > > His explanations are really convoluted, which makes it difficult to > quote any part of what he says. No, which makes it impossible for you to understand. But don't let that put you down. He wrote for the interested layman, an audience well above and beyond your level, the logical analist. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590F6AF3.56FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418525 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: > > > Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > > > physics. > > > > Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who > > understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he > > would recognize his own errors.) > > > > Tom Roberts > > In reality, there are lots of people who agree with me (and Einstein). The scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed my Second Postulate paper for arXiv.org was in full agreement. He said the dispute with mathematicians has been going on for a hundred years. He also pointed me to a web page where scientists (including Nobel Prize winners) are organizing against the policies that prevent publication of ideas that conflict with established dogma. > > I also found a great book, "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner, which fully agrees with what I've been saying. > > And, of course, Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" agrees with what I've been saying. > > Now that I have finished writing the papers, I can focus my time on finding the right place to publish, and I can look for support. > > > > Ed The only reason why they play a song on the radio is because the record companies pay the dj to play the song. Pay to play. Payolla. Don't you want to be a rock star? The Starmaker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1a26fe4-b4b2-47fc-b7c3-55c8bee4023f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418523 |
On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/6/17 5/6/17 12:00 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote: > > Ed, you have zero chance of convincing any of the establishment anything on > > physics. > > Not just "the establishment". He has no hope of convincing ANYONE who > understands the issues. BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. (If he did understand them, he > would recognize his own errors.) > > Tom Roberts I am surprised Tom Roberts has nit Kill filed Ed Lake Yet. Makes me Suspicious Ed Lake is a Creation of Tom Robert & his Friends
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oel90t$1jpi$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418396 |
On 5/6/17 9:47 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > And you seem to believe the fastest runner is the one who trained the most, not the one who runs fastest. That is HILARIOUS! And you believe that the fastest runner won't need to have training. I see. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web