Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467924 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 366 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-15 19:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 04:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 22:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 07:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:57 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 23:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:44 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-18 08:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Sushika Imaki <kukih@wkkss.ki> - 2018-08-18 17:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 12:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:32 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 19:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light egas@pacbell.net - 2018-08-17 09:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:55 +0000
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 21:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:33 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-20 14:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 10:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 00:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 13:13 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 13:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-18 13:49 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 11:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-23 05:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 16:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 19:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-20 08:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 22:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 05:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 10:54 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 18:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 20:51 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 01:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:48 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 10:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 10:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 22:05 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:20 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-23 10:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 11:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:24 +0100
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 22:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 20:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 12:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 23:15 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 01:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 12:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 07:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 16:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 08:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 12:53 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 11:11 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 20:23 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-23 11:52 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-24 06:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-24 13:25 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-25 03:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 08:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 12:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-21 09:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-21 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 23:29 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-22 10:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 02:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:36 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 04:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 09:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 19:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-23 15:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 03:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 00:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 01:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:01 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 03:33 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-24 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:27 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-28 11:01 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 12:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 09:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 15:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 11:22 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Toloni D'antonio <uut@gwrroei.ta> - 2018-08-27 16:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 18:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 18:31 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-23 14:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-25 23:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-26 22:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-24 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 07:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 06:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 06:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-26 08:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 16:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 01:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-24 02:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:54 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 13:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 20:28 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 01:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 23:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 10:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-30 22:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:19 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 01:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 02:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <13d14ccb-77bb-c8c2-44a0-c6de7a603fcb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468362 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> Hey guys, I'm baaaack. Oh boy. >> I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and >> the Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf >> >> And here is the opening paragraph: >> >> "The fact that the speed of light is variable is demonstrated almost >> every day. No, it is NOT. > No matter where you measure the speed of light, if you measure it > correctly, you will get a result of 299,792,458 meters per second. This claim of yours contradicts your own claim. > Does this mean that the speed of light is the same everywhere? Yes, it does. > No. It means the speed of light PER SECOND is the same everywhere. Word salad. You can specify the speed of light c in any other unit of speed (even 1 light-year per year, which is done to simplify equations where c occurs); that does not change a thing about its isotropy. Here are a few examples: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+light&dataset=> > And, according to Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity, > the length of a second can be different almost everywhere. Simply false. Given the same medium (for simplicity: perfect vacuum) the following applies instead: Special relativity is based on the experimentally confirmed assumption that the speed of light is NOT "different almost everywhere", but THE SAME EVERYWHERE REGARDLESS OF MOTION instead. It says so in Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905) ALREADY: ,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154> ,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157> | | We […] shall introduce, in addition, the postulate […] that in empty | space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V which is | independent of the [5] state of motion of the emitting body. | | […] | | §2. On the relativity of lengths and times | | The considerations that follow are based on the principle of relativity | and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, two | principles that we define as follows: | | […] | 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system "at rest" with the | definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light is | emitted by a body at rest or a body in motion. | […] General relativity (1915) allows the COORDINATE speed of light to be different IN CURVED SPACETIME. NOT the LOCAL speed of light (LOCALLY, spacetime is approximately flat). It is why there are BLACK holes: the COORDINATE speed of light, for a DISTANT OBSERVER, is ZERO at the event horizon because FOR THEM space is falling at the speed of light. So no light emitted from there can reach that observer, and the region appears dark/black to them. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Fundamental_role_in_physics> <http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html> > That means that if you measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 > meters PER SECOND in one location, and if you also measure it to be > 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in another location, if the length of a > second is different at those two locations, then the speed of light is > also different." NONSENSE. >> Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, But those are NOT facts, they are UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS by YOU, and most of them are factually WRONG (e.g., special relativity simply does NOT say what you claim it would: it is based on THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim instead). Not only are your claims deniable, and in part pseudo-scientific nonsense (“speed of light PER SECOND”), they are DISPROVED EVERY MINUTE (or more often) as satellite navigation is WORKING. If the speed of light would be variable, if it would depend on the motion of the sender relative to the receiver or vice-versa, it just could not work: Trilateration with GNSS (such as GPS) works by having at least four satellites in orbit where each is sending a signal in all directions. The receiver knows where the satellites are in orbit (ephemerides) and how long it took the signal to travel to them (by comparing the time of arrival of the signal to the time of submission encoded in the signal). From this the receiver can calculate their DISTANCE from each satellite, and eventually their position (e.g. on the surface of Earth) BECAUSE THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL, THE SPEED Of LIGHT, IS ALWAYS CONSTANT AND THE SAME. IT DOES NOT MATTER IN WHICH DIRECTION each satellite is MOVING (it is in an ORBIT) relative to the receiver (and vice-versa). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Navigation_equations> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation> > I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be > interested in your thoughts. :-) > > While doing some research this morning, […] It is evident that you do not even know what that means. > I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's > Carver Mead. The institute’s name is written Caltech, and the person you are citing says something completely different than you. It is just that in your uninformed hubris you believe that you understand what they are saying, when in reality you do not. Thus, you are a hopeless case. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc17e9a2-db5a-4f5e-bbdf-6caa1b240fe5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468362 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:36:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: I was just reading another article by Caltech's Carter Mead. It's titled "The Nature of Light: What are 'Photons'?" http://www.cns.caltech.edu/people/faculty/mead/Nature_Of_Light_What_Are_Photons.pdf Here are some things he lists as "The Current World View" which are certainly consistent with most posts to this forum: 6. Mathematical elegance is the most important attribute of a theory. 7. The mathematics of a theory constitutes the entire theory. 8. It is not necessary for a theory to enable conceptual reasoning. 9. It is acceptable for a theory to be logically inconsistent. Mead then says, "Once these prejudices are articulated, it becomes clear that not every person subscribes to all of them. Some seem self-evident, some seem irrelevant, and some seem nonsense to any given person. Yet no two people, even if they are working in the same discipline, agree on which is which. And all of these ideas are, in one way or another, effectively shaping current scientific discussion." He then proposes an "Alternate World View" which includes these items: 14. It is centrally important for a theory to be logically consistent. 15. Mathematical elegance is important in a theory when it aids conceptual reasoning. It is destructive when it obscures otherwise accessible conceptual understanding. 16. It is rare for theory to predict new physical phenomena. In most cases each new phenomenon is discovered/invented experimentally, and the current theory is quickly "adjusted" so as to "predict" the observed result. 17. The successes in technological enterprise are attributable to conceptual reasoning. "Fundamental" physical theory, as taught in universities and and propagated in the literature, has a long history of hindering conceptual reasoning, and therefore technological progress. And the paper also includes this: "Efforts on the old quantum theory persisted well into the 1920's. In the mid-to-late 1920's, the work of DeBroglie, Schroedingier, Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, and Dirac led from the old quantum theory to the quantum theory that is taught in schools today. Experiments during that formative period were still based on spectra from excited gasses, and hence were, by their very nature, only statistical in nature. The limitations of those experiments were built into the conceptual foundations of the new quantum mechanics, and remain there to this day. In fact, the limitation to statistical predictions was turned into a religion by Bohr and Heisenberg. "They championed the notion that "there was no deeper level to be understood". Yes, mathematics as promoted by Bohr and Heisenberg HAS become a RELIGION, as we can see in arguments on this forum. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 23:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ca794631-aba2-2d71-5205-7da9a3865b3d@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468373 |
Ed Lake wrote: > I was just reading another article by Caltech's Carter Mead. It's titled > "The Nature of Light: What are 'Photons'?" > http://www.cns.caltech.edu/people/faculty/mead/Nature_Of_Light_What_Are_Photons.pdf JFTR & JFYI: There is no scientist by the name of "Carter Mead" at Caltech. There WAS a _Carver_ Mead there who is “Gordon and Betty Moore Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, Emeritus” since 1999. Formerly he was a Professor of Computer Science there. IOW, he is a RETIRED ENGINEER; he is NOT A PHYSICIST by any measure, and yet he is the one whose paper on photons, a PHYSICS topic, you are citing. The paper was a SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics, proceedings paper in 2013, presented at the SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, 2013, San Diego, California, United States, ONLY. It was NOT published in a peer-reviewed physics journal (like APS’ Physical Review Letters), but only by “an international not-for-profit professional society for optics and photonics technology” (SPIE publishes a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals, none of which pertain to physics specifically). <http://www.cns.caltech.edu/people/faculty/mead.html> <http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.2046381> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPIE> So much for your "research". -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plhgmg$61v$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468373 |
Ed Lake wrote: > Here are some things he lists as "The Current World View" which are > certainly consistent with most posts to this forum: > > 6. Mathematical elegance is the most important attribute of a theory. no, but mathematical beauty. > 7. The mathematics of a theory constitutes the entire theory. no, but the interpretation, which itself is mathematics. > 8. It is not necessary for a theory to enable conceptual reasoning. see above. > 9. It is acceptable for a theory to be logically inconsistent. no, see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 01:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7A789A.3AA4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468362 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > Ed > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C > > Example: > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > It says, > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > Ed The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the speed of light', not what the speed of light is. The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter to Einstein. So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 12:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2acf3904-44ac-22d6-bd0e-16648f8ca8f3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468418 |
The Starmaker wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name belongs there.
> The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is.
Albert Einstein has died long ago, so you ought to write about him in the
past tense.
He *definitely* *had* an idea what the speed of light is. Special
relativity (1905+ CE) is his successful attempt to reconcile Maxwellian
electrodynamics with the Galilean principle of relativity. From Maxwell’s
equations follows that the phase speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum is
c₀ = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀).
James Clerk Maxwell assumed ca. 1862, which Hertz (from 1886 to 1889) and
others confirmed later, that light is an electromagnetic wave because
observation showed that light propagates in vacuum at exactly this speed.
During Einstein’s life (1879–1955), the value for the speed of light in
vacuum had been refined by measurement from 298'000 ± 500 km∕s (Foucault
1862) to 299'792.5 ± 3.0 km∕s (Essen and Gordon-Smith 1950).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History>
If you use the current (SI) values for ε₀ and µ₀, the electric and magnetic
constants, you find that
c₀ = 299'792'458 m∕s,
which is precisely the value that is used to define the SI unit of length
(metre) since 1983.
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2Fsqrt(epsilon_0+mu_0)&dataset=>
> His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the
> speed of light', not what the speed of light is.
No, special relativity is based on two principles: the Galilean principle of
relativity and the experimentally confirmed assumption that the speed of
light is constant and the same in all inertial frames of reference given the
same medium (principle of light [speed] constancy).
That the speed of light in vacuum is the speed limit of the universe
*instead* *follows* from the Lorentz transformation as *derived* by Einstein
therein, because speeds v and u' in the same direction (where u' is observed
in an inertial reference frame that is observed to move at v in the same
direction) do NOT simply add (contrary to what the Galilean transformation
has to say about that).
The Lorentz transformation of space and time (spatial and temporal
coordinates) in general:
x' = γ ( x − v t)
t' = γ ( t − v∕c² x).
For two separated events e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁') and
e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂'):
x₁' = γ ( x₁ − v t₁)
t₁' = γ ( t₁ − v∕c² x₁)
x₂' = γ ( x₂ − v t₂)
t₂' = γ ( t₂ − v∕c² x₂).
Spatial and temporal distances between those events:
∆x = x₂ − x₁
∆t = t₂ − t₁
∆x' = x₂' − x₁'
∆t' = t₂' − t₁'
∆x' = γ ((x₂ − x₁) − v (t₂ − t₁))
∆t' = γ ((t₂ − t₁) − v∕c² (x₂ − x₁))
∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)
∆t' = γ (∆t − v∕c² ∆x).
Definition of speed as measurable in each of the two inertial frames:
u = ∆x ∕∆t
u' = ∆x'∕∆t'.
Therefore:
u' = (∆x − v ∆t)∕ (∆t − v∕c² ∆x )
= ∆t (∆x∕∆t − v )∕[∆t (1 − v∕c² ∆x∕∆t)]
= (∆x∕∆t − v )∕ (1 − v∕c² ∆x∕∆t)
u' = (u − v )∕ (1 − v∕c² u ).
[See also: A. Einstein (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies”, “Ⅰ. Kinematic Part”, “§5. The addition theorem of
velocities”. (Beck translation)
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/167>]
Also (full proof left to the reader as an exercise in logic and high-school
level algebra):
…
x = γ (x' + v t')
t = γ (t' + v∕c² x')
…
u(v, u') = (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²).
If you set one or both of the speeds v and u' to c or greater (go ahead, set
them to 2c, 3c, 4c, …) you can see that speed u of an observed object in a
chosen rest frame can be *at most c*, otherwise it will be *less than c* (in
fact, *the more* you increase the individual speeds *above c* (assuming this
to be physically possible), *the less (than c)* is the composed speed.
The speed of light c is greatest in (perfect) vacuum:
c = c₀∕n,
where c₀ is the speed of light in vacuum, and n is the refractive index,
with the refractive index of vacuum being n = 1 (no refraction by vacuum at
all).
So (for objects with non-imaginary mass at least) the speed of light in
vacuum *is* the local speed limit of the universe (in approximately *flat*
spacetime, where special relativity applies).
> The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...
It is a constant _physical quantity_, which is a number *with a unit*.
> what the number is doesn't matter to Einstein.
Wrong tense aside, that much is true in *this* equation (for simplicity of
calculation, we can even set c = 1 and restore dimensions only in the end).
However, that the number cannot be exceeded in the relativistic composition
(sometimes simplified: addition) of speeds (sometimes: velocities) *did*
matter *a lot* to Einstein and did and does matter to all (natural) scientists.
> So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a
> million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein.
Probably not anymore, because he is dead now. But it *did* matter to him
*a lot* at the time.
> In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant.
No, it stands for the speed of light (in vacuum). Originally it was “c” for
Latin «celeritās« “quickness”, “swiftness”, “haste”; before that Einstein
did not even use “c“: he used, as was common, “V” for Latin «velocitās»
“speed”, and a *capital* “V” to indicate a constant.
Also, one usually does not write “M” for mass in this equation (actually,
I have only seen wannabes and other laypeople write exactly “E=Mc^2”,
without any index and without any ambiguity-avoiding space in-between); one
writes “m”, also to emphasize that a small mass means a large *rest* energy
E₀ because the speed of light is so huge. This has important implications
for nuclear physics and its applications like nuclear reactors and,
unfortunately, also nuclear weapons:
E₀ = m c².
“M” is used for mass in other equations where it is emphasized that the mass
is usually large(r than another mass), for example in the common, scalar
form of Newton’s law of universal gravitation –
F = G M m∕r²
– (think about M as the mass of Earth and m the mass of the apple, and r the
distance between their centers of mass; or Earth and Moon, or Jupiter and
one of the Galilean moons, or the Sun and planet a planet in the Sol system,
respectively), and in that for the Schwarzschild radius of a (stellar) black
hole (e.g. produced by the collapse of stellar core matter) of mass M:
rₛ = 2 G M∕c².
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <734f6110-0cb4-4494-8c29-f45e17a78b87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468418 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:48:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > Hey guys, I'm baaaack. > > > > > > I just put a new paper on vixra.org. It is titled "Variable Time and the > > > Variable Speed of Light." Here is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf > > > > > > And here is the opening paragraph: > > > > > > > > > > > Since the facts in that paragraph are undeniable, I assume everyone here fully agrees with it. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in your thoughts. :-) > > > > > > Ed > > > > While doing some research this morning, I realized that many of my arguments were previously stated by Cal-Tech's Carver Mead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C > > > > Example: > > > > "Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game." > > > > Source: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html > > > > Here's another article about Carver Mead: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/ > > > > It says, > > > > "Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe." > > > > "We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from." > > > > "If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe." > > > > Ed > > > The truth is...Albert Einstein has no idea what the speed of light is. > > His who special relativity is based on 'nothing travels faster than the > speed of light', not what the speed of light is. > > > The c in E=Mc^2 is a constant number...what the number is doesn't matter > to Einstein. > > So whether the speed of light is ten times the speed of sound or a > million times the speed of sound it doesn't matter to Einstein. > > > > In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. So, at any given location E=Mc^2. However, because a second will have a different duration in different locations, c is NOT a "universal constant." Einstein knew that the speed of light was different in different locations. It is the basis for his "relativity of simultaneity" ideas. If light is emitted from two different locations that are the same distance away from an observer, the light will NOT arrive simultaneously for the observer if the emitter at the first location is moving faster than the emitter at the second location, OR if the first emitter is at a higher altitude than the second emitter. Some people confuse this with Newton's debunked "emission theory" idea that the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of light. Einstein says that "idea is NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, he phrased it this way, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." He was saying that you do NOT add c to v, where v is the velocity of the emitter. However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 16:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4f02c0de-885d-a398-aa4d-26b87dd31a11@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468429 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 3:15:27 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: >> In other words...the c in E=Mc^2 stands for...constant. > > C is a "constant" only in that it is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND at any given location. No. And the symbol usually used for the speed of light is a small “c“, not a capital “C”. Even "The Starmaker" knows this better than you. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd4bdc1e-34c8-4bcd-b928-bcab9c5967b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468429 |
El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 11:28:21 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > Ed Time does not slows for an emitter (probably you really mean a clock rate decreases for a moving emitter). What Einstein wrote is that A MOVING CLOCK WILL BE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW FROM A STATIONARY OBSERVER. An observer moving along with the clock will not measure any change in the rate of the clock. Stop writing lies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d059f994-1ffa-47d6-8bff-1a7cb8c382e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468436 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:12:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 11:28:21 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > Ed > > Time does not slows for an emitter (probably you really mean a clock rate > decreases for a moving emitter). > > What Einstein wrote is that A MOVING CLOCK WILL BE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW FROM > A STATIONARY OBSERVER. Correct, but he also wrote that if clock rates are COMPARED between observers, they will CONFIRM that the faster moving clock runs slower than the other. > > An observer moving along with the clock will not measure any change in the rate > of the clock. Correct, he will not notice any change in the clock because EVERYTHING moving with the clock will be slowed. So, there is nothing to compare against. When the clock slows, the observer ages more slowly, he thinks more slowly, his hair grows more slowly, etc., etc. He will not notice anything different until or UNLESS he COMPARES his rate to the rate of someone moving at a different speed. > > Stop writing lies I wrote no lies. You just do not understand Relativity. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 17:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4be47eb0-19c4-4370-bde7-09a18d0fe3b1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468442 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:12:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> What Einstein wrote is that A MOVING CLOCK WILL BE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW >> FROM A STATIONARY OBSERVER. > > Correct, but he also wrote that if clock rates are COMPARED between > observers, they will CONFIRM that the faster moving clock runs slower > than the other. No, he did not write such a nonsense. That is just your fantasy. >> Stop writing lies > > I wrote no lies. You just do not understand Relativity. Pot, kettle, black. One of the key concepts of all relativity (Galilean and otherwise) is that speed is relative (to something), not absolute. It does not make sense to specify a speed without saying relative to which other thing the speed is measured/specified. (Usually the other thing is ASSUMED to be at rest, to have speed ZERO.) So there is no absolute “faster moving clock”, and EACH observer who is at rest with one clock observes the OTHER clock, the one that is is moving RELATIVE TO THEM, as running SLOWER (than the clock relative to which they are at rest, with which they are CO-MOVING). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ad4d018-25a9-41e2-b8b3-c288c0528540@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468442 |
El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 12:39:02 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:12:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 11:28:21 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Time does not slows for an emitter (probably you really mean a clock rate > > decreases for a moving emitter). > > > > What Einstein wrote is that A MOVING CLOCK WILL BE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW FROM > > A STATIONARY OBSERVER. > > Correct, but he also wrote that if clock rates are COMPARED between observers, they will CONFIRM that the faster moving clock runs slower than the other. > You do not provide a source for that, but even without a source, that is not right. First, you can not compare clock rates between observers unless all of the observers are colocated at the same place (that way they can check the rates with instruments). When all the clocks are colocated, they will be ticking at the same rate (provided they are good clocks such as atomic clocks). What you can compare (as Hafele Keating did) is the accumulated reading difference between the stationary and moving clocks, which is totally different to what you are asserting. > > > > An observer moving along with the clock will not measure any change in the rate > > of the clock. > > Correct, he will not notice any change in the clock because EVERYTHING moving with the clock will be slowed. So, there is nothing to compare against. When the clock slows, the observer ages more slowly, he thinks more slowly, his hair grows more slowly, etc., etc. He will not notice anything different until or UNLESS he COMPARES his rate to the rate of someone moving at a different speed. > Again, this is word salad. The laws of physics, inside a moving object, are exactly the same laws of physics governing a stationary object. So nothing makes the hair to grow slow, etc. What you have is that at the end of the journey, when you reunite the objects, the accumulated lapse of time will be different (see the twin paradox). In either case the SECOND has not changed at all. > > > > Stop writing lies > > I wrote no lies. You just do not understand Relativity. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3338f5f-68dc-4e2e-8d0f-6a19ecb54929@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468450 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:02:27 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 12:39:02 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:12:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2018, 11:28:21 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > > > > > > However, he was also saying that when time slows for an emitter, the light that is emitted is equally slowed. So, c is NOT truly "independent of the state of motion of the emitter." C changes when the state of motion of the emitter changes, but v does not ADD to c NOR subtract from c. C remains 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the duration of a second changes. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Time does not slows for an emitter (probably you really mean a clock rate > > > decreases for a moving emitter). > > > > > > What Einstein wrote is that A MOVING CLOCK WILL BE MEASURED TO RUN SLOW FROM > > > A STATIONARY OBSERVER. > > > > Correct, but he also wrote that if clock rates are COMPARED between observers, they will CONFIRM that the faster moving clock runs slower than the other. > > > > You do not provide a source for that, but even without a source, that is not > right. From Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity: "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A." > > First, you can not compare clock rates between observers unless all of the > observers are colocated at the same place (that way they can check the rates > with instruments). When all the clocks are colocated, they will be ticking > at the same rate (provided they are good clocks such as atomic clocks). Actually, they can compare tick rates by sending light pulses through a fiber optic cable. That is what they did in the Geodesy and Geometric experiment in Italy and France earlier this year. The ticks sent down the cable were closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at the lower altitude. > > What you can compare (as Hafele Keating did) is the accumulated reading > difference between the stationary and moving clocks, which is totally > different to what you are asserting. > > > > > > > An observer moving along with the clock will not measure any change in the rate > > > of the clock. > > > > Correct, he will not notice any change in the clock because EVERYTHING moving with the clock will be slowed. So, there is nothing to compare against. When the clock slows, the observer ages more slowly, he thinks more slowly, his hair grows more slowly, etc., etc. He will not notice anything different until or UNLESS he COMPARES his rate to the rate of someone moving at a different speed. > > > > Again, this is word salad. The laws of physics, inside a moving object, are > exactly the same laws of physics governing a stationary object. So nothing > makes the hair to grow slow, etc. What you have is that at the end of the > journey, when you reunite the objects, the accumulated lapse of time will > be different (see the twin paradox). In either case the SECOND has not changed > at all. The slowing of the functions (spinning) of particles and atoms causes everything that consists of particles and atoms to slow down. Clocks consist of particles and atoms, and so you you and I. When we move fast, all the particles and atoms within us slow down. Meanwhile, of course, objects that are NOT moving with us are not affected. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fe-dnbYnNemOnebGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #468464 |
On 8/20/18 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > Actually, they can compare tick rates by sending light pulses > through a fiber optic cable. That is what they did in the Geodesy and > Geometric experiment in Italy and France earlier this year. The ticks sent > down the cable were closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at > the lower altitude. What REALLY happened is that the ticks RECEIVED FROM THE CABLE (sent from the higher clock, received at the location of the lower clock) were closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at the lower altitude. Physics is subtle, and requires precision in thought and word. You repeatedly speak so loosely that it is not possible for you to understand the ACTUAL physics of what is going on: your loose wordings hide it. Apparently you are unable to read well enough to distinguish between what you wrote above and what I wrote (and what the original authors wrote) -- how sad. It OUGHT to be obvious that before one can claim to compare the clock's tick rates, ONE MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECTS OF GRAVITY ON THE SIGNALS IN THE CABLE. Do that and one finds that the clock's tick rates are EQUAL. Yes, gravity affects the time intervals between measurements of signals sent between locations at different gravitational potentials (i.e. higher and lower). It does not affect the clocks themselves. This is counter-intuitive to many people (including Ed Lake); nevertheless this is what is ACTUALLY measured, and is SOLIDLY established. It is also what GR predicts. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <283f257d-76cd-4950-b92d-e4723e354cca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468474 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:53:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/20/18 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Actually, they can compare tick rates by sending light pulses > > through a fiber optic cable. That is what they did in the Geodesy and > > Geometric experiment in Italy and France earlier this year. The ticks sent > > down the cable were closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at > > the lower altitude. > > What REALLY happened is that the ticks RECEIVED FROM THE CABLE (sent from the > higher clock, received at the location of the lower clock) were closer together > than the ticks of the identical clock at the lower altitude. > > Physics is subtle, and requires precision in thought and word. > You repeatedly speak so loosely that it is not possible for > you to understand the ACTUAL physics of what is going on: > your loose wordings hide it. Apparently you are unable to read > well enough to distinguish between what you wrote above and > what I wrote (and what the original authors wrote) -- how sad. > You're saying the same thing I said. Too bad you cannot understand that. How sad. > It OUGHT to be obvious that before one can claim to compare the clock's tick > rates, ONE MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECTS OF GRAVITY ON THE SIGNALS IN THE CABLE. > Do that and one finds that the clock's tick rates are EQUAL. > > Yes, gravity affects the time intervals between measurements > of signals sent between locations at different gravitational > potentials (i.e. higher and lower). It does not affect the > clocks themselves. > > This is counter-intuitive to many people (including Ed Lake); > nevertheless this is what is ACTUALLY measured, and is SOLIDLY > established. It is also what GR predicts. > > Tom Roberts You just repeat the same nonsense over and over and over and over, even though it is repeatedly explained to you why it is nonsense. I'll try to explain it to you in a different way: You are saying that if I am at the top of a building and drop coins into a drain pipe at a rate of one per second, at ground level the coins will come out of the drain pipe at a rate GREATER THAN one per second. That seems like a fantastic way to make money! Where do you think the extra coins come from? In reality, of course, if I drop coins into a drain pipe at one per second, the coins will come out of the drain pipe at one per second, EVEN THOUGH the coins sped up as they fell, falling faster and faster. Each coin sped up at the same rate. Similarly, if I send light pulses down a fiber optic cable, the pulses will exit the cable at the same rate I sent them. If I send them at a trillion per MY second, they will exit at a trillion per MY second. Gravity does NOT affect their speed. But someone down below will measure them to be arriving at at trillion plus 2 per second BECAUSE A SECOND IS LONGER DOWN BELOW. It really isn't that difficult to understand. Your beliefs are just plain NONSENSE. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12ddcf1b-634f-4c41-ba9a-368d50ccc2cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468493 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 4:22:53 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:53:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > You are saying that if I am at the top of a building and drop > coins into a drain pipe at a rate of one per second, Meaning that according to your wristwatch, there on top of the building, you are dropping the coins at a rate of 1 per second. meaning that you are dropping them as your wristwatch indicates, 0,1,2,3 etc... > at ground level the coins will come out of the drain pipe at a > rate GREATER THAN one per second. Yes. And meaning, as measured by the wristwatch there at the bottom of the building. And that makes sense. > That seems like a fantastic way to make money! Nope. If you drop 10 coins, only ten will be collected at the bottom. > Where do you think the extra coins come from? No extra coins. > In reality, of course, if I drop coins into a drain pipe at > one per second, the coins will come out of the drain pipe at one > per second, Nope, not in REALITY. Try it. Others have. <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plfbde$qm4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468499 |
rotchm wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 4:22:53 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:53:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> You are saying that if I am at the top of a building and drop coins >> into a drain pipe at a rate of one per second, > > Meaning that according to your wristwatch, there on top of the > building, you are dropping the coins at a rate of 1 per second. meaning > that you are dropping them as your wristwatch indicates, 0,1,2,3 etc... > >> at ground level the coins will come out of the drain pipe at a rate >> GREATER THAN one per second. > > Yes. And meaning, as measured by the wristwatch there at the bottom of > the building. And that makes sense. I vote for the same rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 11:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D5qdnYpP8J-jFuDGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #468493 |
On 8/20/18 3:22 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:53:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 8/20/18 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> [...] The ticks sent down the cable were closer together than the ticks >>> of the identical clock at the lower altitude. >> >> What REALLY happened is that the ticks RECEIVED FROM THE CABLE [...] were >> closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at the lower >> altitude. [...] > > You're saying the same thing I said. NO I AM NOT. The problem is CLEARLY YOURS: It seems that you cannot differentiate between "sent down the cable" and "received from the cable", despite the fact that these happen at quite different locations -- you have bigger problems than your abysmal comprehension of basic physics. To anyone who can read, these are CLEARLY DIFFERENT. I repeat: YOU CANNOT READ. Until you learn how, you will remain mystified, and unable to recognize your own ignorance. > You are saying that if I am at the top of a building and drop coins into a > drain pipe at a rate of one per second, at ground level the coins will come > out of the drain pipe at a rate GREATER THAN one per second. Yes. VERY slightly greater, by a factor vastly too small to measure. (Ignoring all the small stuff you failed to mention.) > That seems like a fantastic way to make money! Where do you think the extra > coins come from? There are no "extra coins", it's just the paths through spacetime that successive coins follow are slightly closer together in time at the bottom than they are at the top. This is an aspect of spacetime curvature, which is how GR models gravity. > In reality [...] if I send light pulses down a fiber optic cable, the pulses > will exit the cable at the same rate I sent them. You have no knowledge of "reality" -- you are just repeating your personal fantasies and misunderstandings. For a fiber-optic cable with ends at different altitudes in a gravitational field, your claim is WRONG. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5c338d8-3a33-43a5-a3b2-6273d2dc3fdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468720 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/20/18 3:22 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:53:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 8/20/18 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> [...] The ticks sent down the cable were closer together than the ticks > >>> of the identical clock at the lower altitude. > >> > >> What REALLY happened is that the ticks RECEIVED FROM THE CABLE [...] were > >> closer together than the ticks of the identical clock at the lower > >> altitude. [...] > > > > You're saying the same thing I said. > > NO I AM NOT. The problem is CLEARLY YOURS: > > It seems that you cannot differentiate between "sent down the cable" and > "received from the cable", despite the fact that these happen at quite different > locations -- you have bigger problems than your abysmal comprehension of basic > physics. To anyone who can read, these are CLEARLY DIFFERENT. > > I repeat: YOU CANNOT READ. Until you learn how, you will remain mystified, and > unable to recognize your own ignorance. > > > You are saying that if I am at the top of a building and drop coins into a > > drain pipe at a rate of one per second, at ground level the coins will come > > out of the drain pipe at a rate GREATER THAN one per second. > > Yes. VERY slightly greater, by a factor vastly too small to measure. (Ignoring > all the small stuff you failed to mention.) If it is too small to measure, how do you know there is a difference? Because you have mathematical equations that say so? > > > That seems like a fantastic way to make money! Where do you think the extra > > coins come from? > > There are no "extra coins", it's just the paths through spacetime that > successive coins follow are slightly closer together in time at the bottom than > they are at the top. This is an aspect of spacetime curvature, which is how GR > models gravity. Time is slower at the lower location, which means a second is LONGER at the lower location, which means that coins dropped at "one per second" at the top of the pipe will arrive slightly more than one per second at the bottom where a SECOND IS LONGER. In my paper which you refuse to read, I illustrate this with diagrams. If you cannot understand words, maybe you will be able to understand the diagrams. The paper is here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf The diagram that illustrates your mistaken beliefs is Figure 8 at the top of page 10. > > > In reality [...] if I send light pulses down a fiber optic cable, the pulses > > will exit the cable at the same rate I sent them. > > You have no knowledge of "reality" -- you are just repeating your personal > fantasies and misunderstandings. For a fiber-optic cable with ends at different > altitudes in a gravitational field, your claim is WRONG. > > Tom Roberts Don't call them my claims. They are the claims made in articles and scientific papers which you claim are all LIES. So, you should really be claiming that there is a CONSPIRACY by scientists around the world to convince people that your BELIEFS are nonsense. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CfqdncsaLLYEkePGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #468728 |
On 8/22/18 12:01 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Time is slower at the lower location, which means a second is LONGER > at the lower location, [...] You keep repeating this. It is WRONG. >> You have no knowledge of "reality" -- you are just repeating your >> personal fantasies and misunderstandings. > Don't call them my claims. They are the claims made in articles and > scientific papers which you claim are all LIES. No. You have MISREAD those papers and made false claims OF YOUR OWN, which you "think" are what the paper said, but are not actually what was written. As above in this thread, where you cannot distinguish "sent" from "received". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web