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 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 18:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32ad94f4-31a5-4f91-be56-7d1dd55945a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468656 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 6:05:52 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > >> Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#Practical_uses > > > > > > There are various contributions to synchronization. > > > > I am not sure what your point is there, but the Sagnac effect, which lets > > clocks at rest in a rotating frame of reference, like the rotating surface > > of Terra, become not synchronous, is avoided by GPS time being defined in an > > Earth-central *inertial* frame (ECIF) instead of an Earth-central rotating > > frame (ECRF). As you can read in the last sentence of the section that you > > cite and in Ashby 2002 which Pogge 2017 above cites. > > > > (The Sagnac effect does not contradict, but confirms, special relativity. > > The clocks have to become not synchronous because if they were synchronized > > using light, if the frame is rotating that light has to travel a longer > > distance at the same speed from clock A to clock B than vice-versa .) > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#Relativistic_derivation_of_Sagnac_formula> > > > > Thanks. > > These references are rather current.... > > Sagnac effect of de-synchronization > is from counter-rotating signals. > If instead "without loss of generality" > a point is fixed and then the signal's > sent through a loop, I'd wonder that > the counter-rotating signals would match > up again. > > Frame-dragging or Lense-Thirring contributes > for Sagnac for the rotational besides, here > of clocks or propagation. > > But, Coriolis is like Doppler and has classical support. > > GPS satellites are constantly rotating about the > Earth, i.e. that the geodesy is always straight > but orbit is always curved. > > Light as flux instead of transport, has quite > some various ideas about synchronization, and > with regards to universal time. > > It must be so that any astronaut can set his > wristwatch to atomic time on Earth, and, on > return, see the expected difference. > > What time is it? > > https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-tests-atomic-clock-for-deep-space-navigation > > "Currently, most missions rely on ground-based > antennas paired with atomic clocks for navigation. > Ground antennas send narrowly focused signals to > spacecraft, which, in turn, return the signal. NASA > uses the difference in time between sending a signal > and receiving a response to calculate the spacecraft’s > location, velocity and path." > > > > "UT1 is the principal form of Universal Time. > While conceptually it is mean solar time at 0° > longitude, precise measurements of the Sun are > difficult. Hence, it is computed from observations > of distant quasars using long baseline interferometry, > laser ranging of the Moon and artificial satellites, > as well as the determination of GPS satellite orbits." > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time > > Well, at least time is always forward. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time#Einstein Is the Kerr metric defined not derived?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b8b7d39-fd25-499c-b265-4099fa94af56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468633 |
El martes, 21 de agosto de 2018, 17:51:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 11:55:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: pending upon altitude and motion. > > > > > > Ed > > > > The only clear point is that you do not read the text you are provided. > > > > The last part above reads: > > > > "Radiation of this kind is one of the most stable and reproducible phenomena of > > nature. The current generation of atomic clocks is accurate to within one > > second in a few hundred million years." > > > > Convert that few hundred million years into seconds and you will see that > > atomic clocks DO NOT change their ticking rates because they are orbiting > > at 22000 km over the Earth. That is the reason, the ticking rate of GPS > > satellites has to be adjusted, before the launching. > > > > You continue to not understand that clock ticking rates do not change. What > > changes is the accumulated period of time through a spacetime path. > > You are just babbling, Paparios. Atomic clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes. PERIOD. Atomic clocks for GPS satellites are built to run slower than other clocks on the ground. That is done so that when they are in orbit, where they will run FASTER, they will then run at the same rate as clocks on the ground. > The only one babling here is you. You do not have the ability to read and less to understand what relativity is and, particularly, what time dilation refers to. > "Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. > > "A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > These two statements are missing the more relevant aspect, which is they are comparing the satellite clocks with the ground clocks AT THE GROUND, where the GPS system is being used. For that comparison to be realized, what GPS engineers did was to send the first GPS satellite (in 1977) with an atomic clock which was able to generate TWO clock rates (by using a frequency synthetizer): one of 10.23 MHz (the same rate used at the ground) and the other with a rate of 10.22999999543 MHz (this rate takes into account the correction needed for the atomic clock at the satellite orbit, in order to its signals to be received at 10.23 MHz on the ground. For some 20 days the engineers tested the signals of the GPS satellite with the first 10.23 MHz rate and they found that big errors were produced by using that rate. Consequently they changed the satellite rate to 10.22999999543 MHz and the signals on the ground return to being normal. You can read the source of how the GPS clock are corrected for relativistic effects in Section 3.3.1.1 of the oficial GPS document IS-GPS-200H.pdf available on line "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by ∆f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively." So the reality is that the GPS atomic clock ticks at 10.2299999954326 MHz at the satellite at its signals arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8eff9e69-af3e-4013-9cfa-d6390dd86e1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468654 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 5:48:35 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 21 de agosto de 2018, 17:51:24 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > So the reality is that the GPS atomic clock ticks at 10.2299999954326 MHz at > the satellite at its signals arrive to the ground ticking at 10.23 MHz. Yes. And all this can be found in the official docs. But if its official, idiot ed will deny it. Just like in the definition of 'a second', a definition independent of the location of the Cs, idiot ed will maintain that the definition depends on the location (altitude) of the Cs clock. IOW, if its written in black & white, from an official source (dictionary), idiot ed will deny it. But at least he is getting some attention from the nym troll Jed Sosebee! idiot ed hasn't realized that its a troll making fun of him! That's how clueless idiot ed is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e538b8e6-c6f1-4dd1-9a06-e47238925b22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468584 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:51:26 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > The only point of confusion seems to be that some people > here cannot understand that a cesium-133 atom functions > at different rates depending upon its altitude You mean that some people (you) can not understand that 'a second' is independent of altitude; its not in the definition of 'a second'. Can you show us in the definition of 'a second' where altitude is used?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b96e463-de2d-4eb0-af00-836e60dfb9ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468581 |
On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 16:18:54 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > "But even the best mechanical, electric motorized and quartz crystal-based > clocks develop discrepancies, and virtually none are good enough to realize > an ephemeris second. Far better for timekeeping is the natural and exact > "vibration" in an energized atom. The frequency of vibration (i.e., radiation) > is very specific depending on the type of atom and how it is excited. Since > 1967, the second has been defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels > of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Seme idiots defining shark as a grass-eating insect won't force sharks to eat grass, unfortunately. This length of a second was > selected to correspond exactly to the length of the ephemeris second previously > defined. Atomic clocks use such a frequency to measure seconds by counting > cycles per second at that frequency. Radiation of this kind is one of the most > stable and reproducible phenomena of nature. The current generation of atomic > clocks is accurate to within one second in a few hundred million years. Your moronic clocks are only accurate enough for your moronic games. Not for a serious measurement system. Anyone can check it at GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ef0e5b7-000b-45d3-91f0-b7641b50b404@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468580 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:55:02 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > According to ED Lake: > > Any atomic clock, independent of its speed and position, > > will MEASURE a second to be the duration of 9 192 631 770 > > periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition > > between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > > the cesium 133 atom. > > > > According to Ed Lake: > > The "duration of a second" varies with speed and position. > > > > A master in logic like Ed Lake will know that this > > can only mean that the "duration of a second" is > > different from a second measured by a clock. > > The "duration of a second" can therefore not be > > measured by a clock. > > > > So how will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? > > I measure it the same way everyone else measures it. > > Duration is a COUNT. When the cesium clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" it has MEASURED the DURATION of one second. > > Ed Measuring time is something only humans do. First we noticed that the sun will move across the sky at virtually the same rate tomorrow as it did today. Days and nights occur regularly and we can actually predict when a day will end and when a night will end. At about the same time we also noticed there were seasons. And we considered four seasons to be "one year." Later we learned it was equal to one orbit of the Earth around the sun. We now know that on other planets one year will be a different period of time, and so will a day. On Earth, we divided days into 24 hours when people needed to be able to tell other people when a place of business would be open. We divided hours into 60 minutes when employers needed to tell workers when to start and stop work. We divided minutes into 60 seconds when we needed to measure how much time was required to do certain tasks. One second has no meaning to anyone beyond the Earth. It is just a count of clock ticks that we have all agreed upon as a standard. But now we are beginning to realize that the "standard" is variable. The standard depends upon the functions of atoms and particles, and the functions of all atoms and particles are affected by motion and altitude. Clocks tick at different rates depending upon their altitude and motion. But, there is nothing we can do about that. EVERYTHING that measures time measures it passing slower at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. And time passes slower when an object moves faster. It's not that difficult to understand. Disputing it is disputing reality. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2u9fD.87766$%u.38619@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #468583 |
Den 21.08.2018 16.39, skrev Ed Lake: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:55:02 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> According to ED Lake: >>> Any atomic clock, independent of its speed and position, >>> will MEASURE a second to be the duration of 9 192 631 770 >>> periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition >>> between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of >>> the cesium 133 atom. >>> >>> According to Ed Lake: >>> The "duration of a second" varies with speed and position. >>> >>> A master in logic like Ed Lake will know that this >>> can only mean that the "duration of a second" is >>> different from a second measured by a clock. >>> The "duration of a second" can therefore not be >>> measured by a clock. >>> >>> So how will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? >> >> I measure it the same way everyone else measures it. You used to pride yourself on your logical reasoning. Yet you seem to miss the logical consequences of your own claim: your "duration of a second" can not be measured with clocks. >> >> Duration is a COUNT. When the cesium clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" it has MEASURED the DURATION of one second. >> >> Ed > > Measuring time is something only humans do. First we noticed that the sun will move across the sky at virtually the same rate tomorrow as it did today. Days and nights occur regularly and we can actually predict when a day will end and when a night will end. > > At about the same time we also noticed there were seasons. And we considered four seasons to be "one year." Later we learned it was equal to one orbit of the Earth around the sun. > > We now know that on other planets one year will be a different period of time, and so will a day. > > On Earth, we divided days into 24 hours when people needed to be able to tell other people when a place of business would be open. > > We divided hours into 60 minutes when employers needed to tell workers when to start and stop work. > > We divided minutes into 60 seconds when we needed to measure how much time was required to do certain tasks. > > One second has no meaning to anyone beyond the Earth. It is just a count of clock ticks that we have all agreed upon as a standard. > > But now we are beginning to realize that the "standard" is variable. The standard depends upon the functions of atoms and particles, and the functions of all atoms and particles are affected by motion and altitude. > > Clocks tick at different rates depending upon their altitude and motion. But, there is nothing we can do about that. EVERYTHING that measures time measures it passing slower at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. This statement: > And time passes slower when an object moves faster. .. is the most naive misconception of relativity there is. > > It's not that difficult to understand. Disputing it is disputing reality. > > Ed > Your answer to the question: How will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? is that your "duration of a second" is unmeasurable. It has no place in physics. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 02:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b01eb74-26c9-4bdf-a84f-f0ea86acc686@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468674 |
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 10:51:13 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > You used to pride yourself on your logical reasoning. > Yet you seem to miss the logical consequences of your > own claim: your "duration of a second" can not > be measured with clocks. See, poor idiot: since your latest update of "metr" definition you have the same situation with the speed of light. > Your answer to the question: > How will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? > is that your "duration of a second" is unmeasurable. > It has no place in physics. That's how little Yona imagines a war.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0374bdb2-642d-413c-93bc-58b8f122d89d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468674 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:51:13 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 21.08.2018 16.39, skrev Ed Lake: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:55:02 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> According to ED Lake: > >>> Any atomic clock, independent of its speed and position, > >>> will MEASURE a second to be the duration of 9 192 631 770 > >>> periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition > >>> between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of > >>> the cesium 133 atom. > >>> > >>> According to Ed Lake: > >>> The "duration of a second" varies with speed and position. > >>> > >>> A master in logic like Ed Lake will know that this > >>> can only mean that the "duration of a second" is > >>> different from a second measured by a clock. > >>> The "duration of a second" can therefore not be > >>> measured by a clock. > >>> > >>> So how will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? > >> > >> I measure it the same way everyone else measures it. > > You used to pride yourself on your logical reasoning. > Yet you seem to miss the logical consequences of your > own claim: your "duration of a second" can not > be measured with clocks. > > >> > >> Duration is a COUNT. When the cesium clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" it has MEASURED the DURATION of one second. > >> > >> Ed > > > > Measuring time is something only humans do. First we noticed that the sun will move across the sky at virtually the same rate tomorrow as it did today. Days and nights occur regularly and we can actually predict when a day will end and when a night will end. > > > > At about the same time we also noticed there were seasons. And we considered four seasons to be "one year." Later we learned it was equal to one orbit of the Earth around the sun. > > > > We now know that on other planets one year will be a different period of time, and so will a day. > > > > On Earth, we divided days into 24 hours when people needed to be able to tell other people when a place of business would be open. > > > > We divided hours into 60 minutes when employers needed to tell workers when to start and stop work. > > > > We divided minutes into 60 seconds when we needed to measure how much time was required to do certain tasks. > > > > One second has no meaning to anyone beyond the Earth. It is just a count of clock ticks that we have all agreed upon as a standard. > > > > But now we are beginning to realize that the "standard" is variable. The standard depends upon the functions of atoms and particles, and the functions of all atoms and particles are affected by motion and altitude. > > > > Clocks tick at different rates depending upon their altitude and motion. But, there is nothing we can do about that. EVERYTHING that measures time measures it passing slower at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. > > This statement: > > And time passes slower when an object moves faster. > > .. is the most naive misconception of relativity > there is. > > > > > It's not that difficult to understand. Disputing it is disputing reality. > > > > Ed > > > > Your answer to the question: > How will Ed Lake measure the "duration of a second"? > is that your "duration of a second" is unmeasurable. > It has no place in physics. But “duration of a second” on your clock can be compared to the “duration of a second’’ on a clock moving wrt you. This is what the LT does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plhh2q$61v$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468465 |
Ed Lake wrote: > It is a COUNT. When the clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the > radiation" it has MEASURED one second. That's not a measurement. You can't measure time units.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c7b55f4-77e1-444e-b08f-b894003d85c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468609 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 12:10:55 PM UTC-5, Jed Sosebee wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > It is a COUNT. When the clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the > > radiation" it has MEASURED one second. > > That's not a measurement. You can't measure time units. You make no sense. I can only repeat: When the clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation" it has MEASURED one second. If that is not a measurement of a second, what IS a measurement of a second? You seem to be saying it is not possible to measure time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pljhsi$18jb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468639 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 12:10:55 PM UTC-5, Jed Sosebee wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >> >> > It is a COUNT. When the clock COUNTS "9 192 631 770 periods of the >> > radiation" it has MEASURED one second. >> >> That's not a measurement. You can't measure time units. > > You make no sense. I can only repeat: When the clock COUNTS "9 192 631 > 770 periods of the radiation" it has MEASURED one second. No, that's counting counts, not measurement. Rather a definition. You are saying it by your own words, not understanding it. > If that is not a measurement of a second, what IS a measurement of a > second? You seem to be saying it is not possible to measure time. Mine gutte menner, you reveal your missed lab experience. You don't know what you are saying, no offence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18a942e9-b3f5-438d-9414-54f91198efe6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468452 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > To determine if the speed of light is ACTUALLY the same in > both places, you have to COMPARE the duration of a second in > both places. No! Who are you to decide how to measure speeds (or time) ? You do not represent the (standards) authority, those who define (and operationally). If you want to know what speeds is (its definition), ditto for position & time, you MUST use the provided definitions. We know that you despise using the correcte definitions and language, but if you want to have a sensible discussion and to do physics, you MUST use the appropriate definitions. > If the seconds are of different lengths, But they are not, as per definition of 'a second'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plhgvh$61v$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468452 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:29:28 AM UTC-5, Jed Sosebee wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >> > 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." >> >> then you contradict yourself already. Reread your first lemma then the >> second. You cant have them both. The point is that they have no >> mechanism resulting in a speed of that integer magnitude, and not a cm >> more or less. I say, unachievable. > > I don't understand your argument, but what I'm saying is that c is a > "constant" because it is MEASURED to be the same rate PER SECOND > everywhere. But because a SECOND actually varies in duration almost > everywhere, c is actually different almost everywhere. Stope putting things "constant"in quotes, like another cretin here being cornered. Is it constant or is it not. You keep committing same mistake over and over again. Just think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd962662-1ed7-48fa-854a-d356fbda73bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468608 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-5, Jed Sosebee wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:29:28 AM UTC-5, Jed Sosebee wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >> > 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." > >> > >> then you contradict yourself already. Reread your first lemma then the > >> second. You cant have them both. The point is that they have no > >> mechanism resulting in a speed of that integer magnitude, and not a cm > >> more or less. I say, unachievable. > > > > I don't understand your argument, but what I'm saying is that c is a > > "constant" because it is MEASURED to be the same rate PER SECOND > > everywhere. But because a SECOND actually varies in duration almost > > everywhere, c is actually different almost everywhere. > > Stope putting things "constant"in quotes, like another cretin here being > cornered. Is it constant or is it not. You keep committing same mistake > over and over again. Just think. c is a "constant" in mathematics where it represents the LOCAL speed of light. c is NOT "constant" in the real world. c varies with the altitude and velocity of the emitter. That is VERY different from "emission theory" where an emitter traveling at v will emit light at c+v. In Relativity, an emitter traveling at v will emit light at c, i.e., 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but faster the emitter is traveling the longer the length of a second will be. It's really not that complicated. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pljicf$18jb$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #468637 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> > I don't understand your argument, but what I'm saying is that c is a >> > "constant" because it is MEASURED to be the same rate PER SECOND >> > everywhere. But because a SECOND actually varies in duration almost >> > everywhere, c is actually different almost everywhere. >> >> Stope putting things "constant"in quotes, like another cretin here >> being cornered. Is it constant or is it not. You keep committing same >> mistake over and over again. Just think. > > c is a "constant" in mathematics where it represents the LOCAL speed of > light. c is NOT "constant" in the real world. c varies with the I guess you don't deserve answer, putting still "constant" in quotes. I don't even know what it is. The first you need to learn in physics, never put things in quotes. > altitude and velocity of the emitter. That is VERY different from > "emission theory" where an emitter traveling at v will emit light at > c+v. In Relativity, an emitter traveling at v will emit light at c, > i.e., 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but faster the emitter is traveling > the longer the length of a second will be. It's really not that > complicated. I guess, this neither. When talking about a theory, talk only about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 23:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7BB02A.8EC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468429 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > 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/wi > > > > > > 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 what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B7CD98B.1378@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #468560 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > 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 > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 15:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2a40dc67-d5bb-bc1b-4b77-bbb093fed164@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #468666 |
The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 *Multiply* by 2? Are you serious? -- 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 | 2018-08-22 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a79b8a6-c4ae-4545-a84f-7e9e27bd11da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468666 |
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:33:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > what is the funtion of the number 2 in E=Mc^2? > > > i just don't understand why one needs to mutiply the speed of light by ...2 The formula is E=M times c squared. c times c, not c times 2. It is a VERY BIG number. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web