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 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54c80b50-9b94-4613-aa06-184614a47843@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418457 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:43:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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 xxein: He can still be the fastest but it does no good if he can't stay on the course for a legitimate finish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f54c57f-0543-414a-9da8-2e712e74b82d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418386 |
El sábado, 6 de mayo de 2017, 11:03:28 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > Ed You can check the Springer physics journals at: http://www.springer.com/gp/impact-factor-2015/if-physics and there the Physics in Perspective journal at http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/physics/journal/16
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28f26e4e-e9bb-4500-aa5c-cdece774db8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418410 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 10:40:51 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 6 de mayo de 2017, 11:03:28 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > > > Ed > > You can check the Springer physics journals at: > > http://www.springer.com/gp/impact-factor-2015/if-physics > > and there the Physics in Perspective journal at > > http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/physics/journal/16 I saw your post in the new thread. I'll check out Physics in Perspective. Thanks. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590F6CF5.7481@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418386 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > Ed The first paragrah reads: "...the knowledge they need to find funding" We help researchers make new discoveries, collaborate with their colleagues, and give them the knowledge they need to find funding. https://www.elsevier.com/ It's all about ants, ...crawling on the ground searching for food. "The Knowledge to Find Funding" Now, what does that mean exactly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5910B2F8.2B5F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418584 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > > > Ed > > The first paragrah reads: "...the knowledge they need to find funding" > > We help researchers make new discoveries, collaborate with their > colleagues, and give them the knowledge they need to find funding. > https://www.elsevier.com/ > > It's all about ants, ...crawling on the ground searching for food. > > "The Knowledge to Find Funding" > > Now, what does that mean exactly? This is how 'the big boys' find funding... they don't write a paper, then try to find funding for it...they do the reverse, they find the funding first, then write a paper to match the funding, then they submit it. They....*Hack* government funding. You want to make a 'quick million'? Find a government funding and give it to a grant writer who specializs in writing million dollar grants. You tell him, "Here, write me a grant that matches this funding." Then go home...lite a joint...and dream about that boat you're going to buy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 22:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591152E4.26A5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418731 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:40:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: > > > > > On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you've made a wrong judgment there. > > > > > Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. > > > > > > > > > > Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why > > > > > many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for > > > > > the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > > > > > > What journal would you recommend for my paper? > > > > > > Ed > > > > The first paragrah reads: "...the knowledge they need to find funding" > > > > We help researchers make new discoveries, collaborate with their > > colleagues, and give them the knowledge they need to find funding. > > https://www.elsevier.com/ > > > > It's all about ants, ...crawling on the ground searching for food. > > > > "The Knowledge to Find Funding" > > > > Now, what does that mean exactly? > > This is how 'the big boys' find funding... > > they don't write a paper, then try to find funding for it...they do the reverse, > > they find the funding first, then write a paper to match the funding, then they submit it. > > They....*Hack* government funding. > > You want to make a 'quick million'? Find a government funding and give it to a grant writer who specializs in writing million > dollar grants. You tell him, "Here, write me a grant that matches this funding." > > Then go home...lite a joint...and dream about that boat you're going to buy... i forgot to mention that million dollar grant writers charge ten thousand dollars...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oel7hc$1hna$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418316 |
On 5/5/17 5:40 PM, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 19:28:45 (UTC-3), Odd Bodkin escribió: >> On 5/5/17 4:27 PM, Paparios wrote: >>> None of those journals is worth a dime.Check Nature or Science for comparison. >>> >> >> I think you've made a wrong judgment there. >> Rev. Mod. Phys. and Phys. Rev. are VERY reputable for example. >> >> Elsevier passes its costs onto libraries for subscriptions, which is why >> many of them dropped Elsevier journals. It was one of the drivers for >> the institution of arXiv.org in the first place. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I have 14 published papers in the IEEE, Elsevier and other journals. None of them has charged me a dime. > Yes, I know. As I said, it does not charge authors. It charges subscribers (like libraries) higher rates than other comparable journals. Different business model. Not a reflection of journal quality. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f5e8b93-ca82-4a84-bc3d-6a464cb91bea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418293 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 4:04:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 5 de mayo de 2017, 17:32:33 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > > > > > > > you wrote: > > > > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > > > > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Since I've never actually published a science paper, there definitely may be things about the process that I do not understand. It was my understanding that pay-to-publish is for people who cannot get their papers published by a respectable journal. But, then I found that many top-ranked journals charge as much as $2,500 to publish an article. So, I'm still learning how the science article publishing process works. > > > > > It is quite clear you do not know the scientific publishing. Most ISI > > journals (ISI is a system of journal indexing which is used by libraries > > and universities to rate the relevance of a given paper, as measured > > by the impact factor) do not charge for publishing a paper (of course > > within certain limits, for instance regarding the paper length or number > > of copies). Examples are the IEEE journals or Elsevier journals. > > > > You can check this in > > https://kofegeek.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/list-of-physics-journals-impact-factors-2013/ > > > > > I do not plan to pay to have any article of mine published. If they ALL charge for publishing, then I'll just leave my papers on viXra.org and maybe self-publish a BOOK about the whole screwball process. > > > > > > Ed > > Yes, I made a list of journals to try by extracting information from such a web site. I got my list from here: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100 > > I had to remove all the journals about medicine, botany, etc., and then I had to remove all those that aren't printed in English. I ended up with 38 journals on the list. Then I started checking them out. > > Reviews of Modern Physics charges $2,900 to print an article. Rank #2. > Applied Physics Reviews charges $2,200 to print an article. Rank #19. > Physics Review X charges $2,900 to print an article. Rank #27. > New Journal of Physics charges $2,000 to print an article. Rank #83. > > Etc. > > Ed I picked Physics Essays before I created the list. I chose them because my local library subscribes. I didn't see anything about any fees. And, at the time I thought that respectable journals do not charge fees. What ticked me off is that they only mention the fee on one of their web pages, and NOT on the instructions to authors page. They mention in at the bottom of their "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EDITORIAL POLICY" page, just before they show their subscription rates. https://physicsessays.org/about.html They never mentioned anything while they were peer reviewing my paper. I just happened to notice a mention of it in one of their final emails, and even then it was buried at the bottom. I could have easily skipped right over it. I could have afforded to pay the $508, but this is NOT my "career." I'm just doing it because it FASCINATES me that schools are TEACHING NONSENSE, and no one seems to care. It wasn't worth $508 to me, when everyone here would just argue that it was a LOW RANKED journal and that I had to pay to get my paper published, which anyone can supposedly do. This is my last post for today. I'll be back tomorrow. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 17:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeiu5k$7ci$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418289 |
On 5/5/17 3:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Since I've never actually published a science paper, there definitely may be things about the process that I do not understand. > It was my understanding that pay-to-publish is for people who cannot get their papers published by a respectable journal. > But, then I found that many top-ranked journals charge as much as $2,500 to publish an article. So, I'm still learning how > the science article publishing process works. > > I do not plan to pay to have any article of mine published. If they ALL charge for publishing, then I'll just leave my papers > on viXra.org and maybe self-publish a BOOK about the whole screwball process. > > Ed You apparently have confused self-publishing with pay-to-publish. It is true that self-publishing will cost you money. So will publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. The difference of course is the quality filter that is on one and not on the other. The quality filter is what you're PAYING for in the case of peer-reviewed journals. In self-publishing you get none of that quality pass and it still costs you money. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 20:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590D4404.8F2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418281 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/170 > > > > > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > > > price. > > > > > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > you wrote: > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > Name a journal. > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > Ed Why in the world would you want to publish in a 'not-pay-to-publish' journal???? Why do you thinks other pay thousands to get publish?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69b7f7ed-0715-40f7-80ea-f5e70b614d00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418345 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:33:02 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/170 > > > > > > > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > > > > price. > > > > > > > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > > > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > > > you wrote: > > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > > > Ed > > > Why in the world would you want to publish in a 'not-pay-to-publish' > journal???? Why do you thinks other pay thousands to get publish? I want to publish in a "not-pay-to-publish" journal because ANYONE can pay to have a paper published. But, in theory, only a paper that is scientifically worthy will get through the peer review process to get published in a journal that gets its funding solely from subscribers. I got involved with "open access" journals when I was working on the anthrax case, back in 2001 - 2005 or so. I was citing article from regular scientific journals and the scientists I was arguing with were publishing NONSENSE in "open access" journals to prove their idiotic conspiracy theories. I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation. I'm not going to pay to have a paper published just to make a point. I'll make my point some other way. I will probably write a book about all this and self-publish it, but that's different. I love writing. And writing things down clarifies the facts for me. Plus, I think this whole reality versus math brouhaha is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <590E0A26.67E3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #418389 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:33:02 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:53:28 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, arXiv.org decided to reject my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." They provided no reason, other than to indicate there was something wrong with it, but they weren't "referees" and didn't have the time or inclination to explain their actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately accepted and is now available for reading at this link: http://vixra.org/abs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is VERY different from the first version, in that it includes references to the "Sagnac Effect" and to the "Michelson-Gale Experiment," which readers of the first version told me needed to be added. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any thoughts about this new version. To me, it leaves no doubt that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is DEAD WRONG, even though it is what is taught is most colleges and universities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it. I haven't given up on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any journal will publish it at the right price...and everybody has a > > > > > > price. > > > > > > > > > > > > The trick is to know the numgber of the right price so you don't over > > > > > > pay by a penny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > > > > > arXiv.org is NOT a journal. It is a web site run by Cornell University where - in theory - people can put their papers to have them discussed by the "scientific community" before publication. Cornell also runs viXra.org, where I put my paper: > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say arXiv.org was a journal... > > > > > > > > you wrote: > > > > "I'd also be interested in thoughts about what journals might publish it." > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is...any journal! > > > > > > > > You give them money, they'll publish it! > > > > > > > > > > > > Name a journal. > > > > > > Okay. I'm not interested in any pay-to-publish journal. I submitted a paper to Physics Essays, which I thought was a non-pay journal. They were all set to publish it next month, then it turned out that buried on one of their web pages was a single sentence that stated that there would be a $127 fee per printed page when published. As soon as they informed me of that, I told them I wasn't interested and withdrew the paper. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Why in the world would you want to publish in a 'not-pay-to-publish' > > journal???? Why do you thinks other pay thousands to get publish? > > I want to publish in a "not-pay-to-publish" journal because ANYONE can pay to have a paper published. But, in theory, only a paper that is scientifically worthy will get through the peer review process to get published in a journal that gets its funding solely from subscribers. > > I got involved with "open access" journals when I was working on the anthrax case, back in 2001 - 2005 or so. I was citing article from regular scientific journals and the scientists I was arguing with were publishing NONSENSE in "open access" journals to prove their idiotic conspiracy theories. > > I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation. I'm not going to pay to have a paper published just to make a point. I'll make my point some other way. > > I will probably write a book about all this and self-publish it, but that's different. I love writing. And writing things down clarifies the facts for me. Plus, I think this whole reality versus math brouhaha is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING. > > Ed people don't pay to have a paper published just to make a point.... they pay 'respectable science journals' so that it can get used to get million dollar government funding. it's an investment, not a vanity publishing. Come on, get with the program...don't you want to buy a yacht and a house for the misses? Corruption is your key to survival in the scientific community. All the guys on top are corrupt! Just say "I want to cure cancer" and you're in the club...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oel8so$1jpi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418389 |
On 5/6/17 9:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > I will probably write a book about all this and self-publish it, but that's different. I love writing. > And writing things down clarifies the facts for me. Plus, I think this whole reality versus math > brouhaha is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING. So, you're going to write a book for your OWN satisfaction, to kill time by writing, and to clarify your thinking. You do not intend to do it for anyone else's benefit. Good to know. That's what Ken Seeto did, what Robert Winn did, what a number of other flakes here did. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <973550d7-2b15-4d24-9fc5-e3f6c3265172@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418080 |
Maxwell is conceding that the electromagnetic theory of light is not based on scientific evidence. "(100) The equations of the electromagnetic field, deduced from purely experimental evidence, show that transversal vibrations only can be propagated. If we were to go beyond our experimental knowledge and to assign a definite density to a substance which we should call the electric fluid, and select either vitreous or resinous electricity as the representative of that fluid, then we might have normal vibrations propagated with a velocity depending on this density. We have, however, no evidence as to the density of electricity, as we do not even know whether to consider vitreous electricity as a substance or as the absence of a substance. Hence electromagnetic science leads to exactly the same conclusions as optical science with respect to the direction of the disturbances which can be propagated through the field; both affirm the propagation of transverse vibrations, and both give the same velocity of propagation. On the other hand, both sciences are at a loss when called on to affirm or deny the existence of normal vibrations." (Maxwell, Part VI). Maxwell is stating that he has absolutely no evidence of the existence of the optical ether and the electromagnetic wave structure of light. _________________________________________________________________________ The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the amount of rocket fuel required in landing onto the surface of the moon. Using the approximation that the amount of fuel required for a rocket to liftoff a satellite into the earth's orbit is equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload onto the earth's surface using a rocket engine descent reentry based on the potential and kinetic energies. Example, the maximum potential energy of a satellite is achieved when the satellite is orbiting the earth and the maximum kinetic energy is produced at the earth's surface after a satellite free falls to the earth's surface; consequently, the fuel load required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 4,783 lb descent module (dry) + 10,300 lb ascent module (wet) = 15,083 lb. The fuel of the ascent module is part of the descent payload. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid fuel to reach the earth's orbit which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. The fuel-payload ratio R and the moon weight of the lander (dry) is used to calculate the fuel load required to descent the Apollo lunar lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket, (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb. To descent the 2,504 lb moon weight Apollo 11 lander onto the surface of the moon requires 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total fuel load of the descent of the lunar lander is 18,000 lb. __________________________________________________________________________________ John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford, has argued for years that most scientific results are less robust than researchers believe. He published a paper in 2005 with the instantly notorious title, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." _______________________________________________________________________ The study, led by Haendel and Nicole Vasilevsky, Ph.D., project manager and biocurator in Oregon Health & Science University's Ontology Development Group, examined nearly 240 articles from more than 80 journals spanning five disciplines: neuroscience, immunology, cell biology, developmental biology and general science. The articles were evaluated to determine if the reported research resources could be uniquely identified based on the information that was provided in each article, its supplemental data, or prior references. Specific criteria were developed to determine if antibodies, cell lines, constructs, model organisms, and knockdown reagents were identifiable. Based on these criteria, Haendel, Vasilevsky and their team of researchers also developed guidelines for reporting of research resources. These guidelines are available online (http://www.force11.org/node/4433) and can be used as a new data standard by authors, reviewers, publishers, and other data contributors to aid reproducibility. The study showed that just under 50 percent of scientific resources used in previously published articles were unidentifiable, a percentage which varied across resource types and disciplines. The study also found no increased level of identification in journals that had more stringent reporting guidelines. "We hope that quantifying the problem through this study will highlight to the research community that there is a significant and pressing need to make material resource information more accessible going forward," said Vasilevsky. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientific-hampered-lack-specificity-material.html#jCp ________________________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7f76ccf-0285-4da2-85f9-1beb326a2943@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418080 |
(1.295580095e+26 meters) / ((0.5 * G) / (c^2)) = 3.4893478e+53 kilograms = mass of universe (1.295580095e+26 meters) / (1 Light year) = 1.36945849e+10 age of universe in light years Black Hole. https://goo.gl/photos/NbhBz8znqB2517LNA http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf c^2 Pascals is why c will always measuredt to be c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8cOdnUF_j9pkL4XEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #418080 |
On 5/4/17 5/4/17 11:40 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> So, I submitted the new version to viXra.org, where it was immediately
> accepted and is now available for reading at this link:
> http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256
I have looked at this paper. I can predict that no reputable peer-reviewed
physics journal will publish it, because it makes so many very basic errors, and
its basic approach is just plain wrong -- he attempts to distinguish what he
thinks is an "emitter only theory" from what is taught in many classes; the
error is LAKE'S, and Einstein's ACTUAL theory is not at all "emitter only"
(quite the opposite, because he EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of
light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter).
As I have said before, Ed Lake cannot read, and this paper displays that
repeatedly. I'll only point out a few places where it is just plain wrong, and
in direct conflict with Einstein's 1905 paper.
Lake titles section II "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory", but that is a
falsehood, and this "emitter only theory" is PURE FABRICATION on the part of Ed
Lake, Einstein had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
To start with, Lake uses the WRONG STATEMENT of Einstein's postulates -- he used
Einstein's INTRODUCTION to them, not the actual statements (which are in section
I.2). Lake claims "Einstein said nothing about what any other observer might see
or measure." which is true for the introduction, but BLATANTLY FALSE for the
paper itself -- Lake OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper.
For instance, in Section I.3 Einstein says "We now have to prove that any ray of
light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c", and
then does so by considering a spherical wave in the "stationary system",
concluding "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system."
Lake claims "The emitting body’s velocity (referred to as v) cannot be added to
the speed of light being emitted, since c + v would produce a speed greater than
the maximum that light can travel." -- he OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's
paper, as in section I.5 Einstein derives the equation for the composition of
velocities, and says "the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition
with a velocity less than that of light". So the emitting body's velocity is NOT
"added to the speed of light being emitted", it is COMPOSED as Einstein showed,
and the result of the composition is c.
Lake claims "an observer approaching the source of light will measure the light
to arrive at c + v, where v is his velocity, and if the observer is moving away
from the source of the light, he will measure the light to arrive at c – v" --
this is ENTIRELY DUE TO LAKE, and is INCONSISTENT with what Einstein said in his
paper: Einstein showed that the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to both
his "stationary system" and his "moving system", and since these are both
arbitrary, relative to ANY inertial system.
Lake completely missed the basic point of Einstein's paper, and claims:
When Einstein wrote that the Second Postulate “is only apparently
irreconcilable with” the First Postulate, he seems to have been
referring to the fact that while the observer standing next to the
emitter measures light he emits as moving at a speed that is
independent of his own speed, that fact does not necessarily apply
to light he may measure coming from another source outside of his
frame of reference.
This is completely wrong, and Lake is just fantasizing, not reading Einstein's
paper. Einstein was discussing the APPARENT inconsistency between his two
postulates: until this paper people assumed the PoR required Galilean
invariance, and that is indeed inconsistent with Einstein's second postulate --
the paper shows that there is no inconsistency when one uses Lorentz invariance.
Einstein showed the OPPOSITE of Lake's claim: that an observer will measure the
(vacuum) speed of light to be c, regardless of whether it is emitted by a source
at rest in the observer's frame, or moving relative to it. Indeed this is the
statement of Einstein's second postulate, which Lake has OBVIOUSLY NEVER READ:
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body.
As Lake is so profoundly confused, I'll spell it out: consider the observer's
frame to be the "stationary system". This second postulate then says the
observer will measure light to propagate at c in his frame, even when the source
of the light is not at rest in his frame. So it DOES apply "to light he may
measure coming from another source outside of his frame of reference".]
Lake's paper is hopeless. He needs to learn how to read, and then needs to
actually READ and LEARN about the subject before attempting to write about it.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <639fcbda-774d-4679-b81f-11bcdafb079f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419441 |
Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2017 21:41:51 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137: ... he [Einstein] EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter). Yes, but why the heck do we need inertial frames wrt light in vacuum?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2e853ca-c4c3-47eb-823a-414a4fc6fe8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419463 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2017 21:41:51 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137: > > > > ... he [Einstein] EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of > > light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter). > > Yes, but why the heck do we need inertial frames wrt light in vacuum? That should be obvious. If the light passes through noninertial regions, Shapiro delay affects the transit time, for one. And if one is accelerating, other effects occur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <soOdnfdKsaTSWoTEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #419463 |
On 5/14/17 5/14/17 - 9:28 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2017 21:41:51 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137: > ... he [Einstein] EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of > light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter). > > Yes, but why the heck do we need inertial frames wrt light in vacuum? Hmmmm. One of the lessons of relativity is that there exists no frame in which light (in vacuum) is at rest. So there is no possible "wrt light" (because "wrt" means with respect to a frame). We need inertial frames, because they are the unique set of systems of coordinates in which the laws of physics are simplest. IOW: Newton's laws do not hold in non-inertial coordinates (without modification, such as "centrifugal and Coriolis forces" in rotating coordinates). Once one understands the geometric underpinnings of SR and GR, it becomes clear that (local) inertial frames are the Riemann normal coordinates of the manifold (i.e. the set of systems of coordinates in which each coordinate axis is a geodesic, the coordinate value is distance along the axis, and the axes are mutually orthogonal). These are also the coordinates in which the connection vanishes; "centrifugal and Coriolis forces" are classical examples of a non-zero connection (as is "gravitational force" in GR). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7892f11b-ef59-4686-ae26-bb70d304ce73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419522 |
Tom Roberts wrote On 5/14/17 5/14/17 - 9:28 PM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2017 21:41:51 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137: > ... he [Einstein] EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of > light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter). > Yes, but why the heck do we need inertial frames wrt light in vacuum? Hmmmm. One of the lessons of relativity is that there exists no frame in which light (in vacuum) is at rest. So there is no possible "wrt light" (because "wrt" means with respect to a frame). We need inertial frames, because they are the unique set of systems of coordinates in which the laws of physics are simplest. IOW: Newton's laws do not hold in non-inertial coordinates (without modification, such as "centrifugal and Coriolis forces" in rotating coordinates). Once one understands the geometric underpinnings of SR and GR, it becomes clear that (local) inertial frames are the Riemann normal coordinates of the manifold (i.e. the set of systems of coordinates in which each coordinate axis is a geodesic, the coordinate value is distance along the axis, and the axes are mutually orthogonal). These are also the coordinates in which the connection vanishes; "centrifugal and Coriolis forces" are classical examples of a non-zero connection (as is "gravitational force" in GR). Tom Roberts So........ You are DIRECTLY ADMITTING my postulate is applicable. Friedmann_equations Density_parameter (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.712958e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792448 m/s "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif https://goo.gl/photos/TmQXh8UxeLJjoYYv5 https://goo.gl/photos/XkAFgaxHcEN9izs47 https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web