Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 295 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:56 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:29 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:34 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-02 22:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:47 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:48 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:52 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 06:22 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:35 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:48 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Orwhin Vadeev <neo@rnhve.ru> - 2026-11-02 20:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:03 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 08:40 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:46 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e25b216a5b36f9$8942$2693458$4286dcd3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674971 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:15:10 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 02:46:17 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 01:33:57 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> In a nutshell: Light is an electromagnetic wave. A wave has a >>>>>>> frequency (and a wavelength). So light has a frequency (and a >>>>>>> wavelength). >>>>>> >>>>>> Poor fellow. A traveling wave is a static wavelike object in its >>>>>> own frame. >>>>> >>>>> Multiple claims contradicting each other in just one sentence. You >>>>> are so clueless, you don't even realize how incredibly, >>>>> mindbogglingly clueless you are. >>>> >>>> Poor fellow. Run the wave equation on your computer and see what >>>> happens. >>> >>> BTDT, as I already referred you to it. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Learn to read. >> >> You didn't do it because you wouldn't know how to > > I just told you that I did. > > Denying reality is the first sign of madness. Supporting Einstein's silly theories is the proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a6t8v$1gsp2$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674222 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:13:23 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 06.10.2026 07:45, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling >>>>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to >>>>> c(1+5.24e-10) >>>>> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree? >>>> >>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. >>>> He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with >>>> radius r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by: >>>> Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s >>> >>> Note that this is only the formula for free fall from relative rest. >> >> You are right. > > Have you gone completely mad? He is certainly not right. He said the speed > increases by 9746 m/s. Apparently you lost track of the conversation despite the quotation prefixes. I did not claim any figure; I just derived the correct, general formula. >> ΔE = m⋅(v²−v₀²)/2 = m⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r) >> where v₀ is the initial speed at r, and v is the final speed at R. >> >> v = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)+v₀²) >> Δv = v - v₀ > > That's the wrong equation. For what? This is the _correct_ equation for the speed of an object as it reaches the ground at radius R when it has been falling from the radius r (assuming a spherically-symmetric gravitational field). >>> The relevant equation of motion is, assuming the equivalence principle, >>> >>> F = m a = m r̈ = −G M m/r² >>> <==> r̈ = −G M/r². >>> >>> It can be solved analytically as follows: >>> >>> ṙ r̈ = −G M ṙ/r² >>> <==> 1/2 d/dt (ṙ²) = −G M ṙ/r² <==> d/dt >>> (ṙ²) = −2 G M ṙ/r² <==> ∫₀ᵗ dt' d/dt' ṙ(t')² = −2 G M ∫₀ᵗ dt' >>> ṙ(t')/r(t')² <==> ṙ(t)² − ṙ(0)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − >>> 1/r(0)] >>> <==> ṙ(t)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)² <==> >>> ṙ(t) = √(2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)²). >>> >>>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 If the object's initial speed of the body is c, >>>> then the speed when it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5) >> >> So if v₀ = c, v = 299792458.1584 m/s, Δv = v-c = 0.1584 m/s >> >> Δv/c = 5.284e-10 > > That the right figure...Newton's.... How can it be the right figure when it is obtained by substituting in the same equation that you call wrong? I just used differential notation: "ṙ(t)" instead of v, and "ṙ(0)" instead of "v₀" :-D "Newton's" figure is not the right one in general; it is just approximately right if v₀ ≪ c. IOW, it does not apply to light. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a62to$1g057$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674215 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.10.2026 07:45, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> The relevant equation of motion is, assuming the equivalence principle, >> >> F = m a = m r̈ = −G M m/r² >> <==> r̈ = −G M/r². >> >> It can be solved analytically as follows: >> >> ṙ r̈ = −G M ṙ/r² >> <==> 1/2 d/dt (ṙ²) = −G M ṙ/r² >> <==> d/dt (ṙ²) = −2 G M ṙ/r² >> <==> ∫₀ᵗ dt' d/dt' ṙ(t')² = −2 G M ∫₀ᵗ dt' ṙ(t')/r(t')² >> <==> ṙ(t)² − ṙ(0)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] >> <==> ṙ(t)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)² >> <==> ṙ(t) = √(2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)²). >> >>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 >>> If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then >>> the speed when it hits the ground would be >>> v = c(1+3.251e-5) > > So if v₀ = c, v = 299792458.1584 m/s, Δv = v-c = 0.1584 m/s > > Δv/c = 5.284e-10 _Iff_ Newton would be correct. He is NOT. >> JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was >> wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and gravitational >> blueshift is observed instead. > > GR: ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 > Newton: ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9 > where E₀ is the kinetic energy at r, > and E₀+ΔE is the kinetic energy at R. What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum does not change either. Yes, the energy of received light is different on the ground than at the emitter in outer space; but not because of its motion towards the ground, but because it was emitted in a different reference frame where more proper time elapses than on the ground. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a695p$374gg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674234 |
Den 07.10.2026 20:27, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 06.10.2026 07:45, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> The relevant equation of motion is, assuming the equivalence principle, >>> >>> F = m a = m r̈ = −G M m/r² >>> <==> r̈ = −G M/r². >>> >>> It can be solved analytically as follows: >>> >>> ṙ r̈ = −G M ṙ/r² >>> <==> 1/2 d/dt (ṙ²) = −G M ṙ/r² >>> <==> d/dt (ṙ²) = −2 G M ṙ/r² >>> <==> ∫₀ᵗ dt' d/dt' ṙ(t')² = −2 G M ∫₀ᵗ dt' ṙ(t')/r(t')² >>> <==> ṙ(t)² − ṙ(0)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] >>> <==> ṙ(t)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)² >>> <==> ṙ(t) = √(2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)²). >>> >>>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 >>>> If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then >>>> the speed when it hits the ground would be >>>> v = c(1+3.251e-5) >> >> So if v₀ = c, v = 299792458.1584 m/s, Δv = v-c = 0.1584 m/s >> >> Δv/c = 5.284e-10 > > _Iff_ Newton would be correct. He is NOT. The above is what Newton predicts. > >>> JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was >>> wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and gravitational >>> blueshift is observed instead. >> >> GR: ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 >> Newton: ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9 This is wrong. Newton predicts ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10, same as GR. >> where E₀ is the kinetic energy at r, >> and E₀+ΔE is the kinetic energy at R. > > What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass > cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum > does not change either. > > Yes, the energy of received light is different on the ground than at the > emitter in outer space; but not because of its motion towards the > ground, but because it was emitted in a different reference frame where > more proper time elapses than on the ground. You seem to have lost the context. ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 is the gravitational blue shift observed on the ground when the em-signal is sent from 26561763 m above the ground. Both the emitter and the receiver are stationary in the ECI-frame. Δf/f₀ = ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a77q4$1l03k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674240 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 07.10.2026 20:27, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:>>> where E₀ is the kinetic energy at r, >>> and E₀+ΔE is the kinetic energy at R. >> >> What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass >> cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum >> does not change either. >> >> Yes, the energy of received light is different on the ground than >> at the emitter in outer space; but not because of its motion towards >> the ground, but because it was emitted in a different reference >> frame where more proper time elapses than on the ground. > > You seem to have lost the context. > > ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 is the gravitational blue shift > observed on the ground when the em-signal is sent from > 26561763 m above the ground. That depends on where the ground is, and what the mass M of the curvature-generating object is, as I derived in <mid:119a9s8$182fs$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂), where m = G M/c², and r₁ and r₂ are Schwarzschild radial coordinates. > Both the emitter and the receiver are stationary in the ECI-frame. Hardly a real-life situation (the planet will be rotating and a satellite needs to orbit it in order not to fall down on it); but OK, I bite for the sake of argument. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a7ltb$3ljt0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674258 |
Den 08.10.2026 06:56, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 07.10.2026 20:27, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:>>> where E₀ is the kinetic energy at r, >>>> and E₀+ΔE is the kinetic energy at R. >>> >>> What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass >>> cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum >>> does not change either. >>> >>> Yes, the energy of received light is different on the ground than >>> at the emitter in outer space; but not because of its motion towards >>> the ground, but because it was emitted in a different reference >>> frame where more proper time elapses than on the ground. >>> You seem to have lost the context. >> >> ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 is the gravitational blue shift >> observed on the ground when the em-signal is sent from >> 26561763 m above the ground. > > That depends on where the ground is, and what the mass M of the > curvature-generating object is, as I derived in > <mid:119a9s8$182fs$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> > > f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂), > > where m = G M/c², and r₁ and r₂ are Schwarzschild radial coordinates. > >> Both the emitter and the receiver are stationary in the ECI-frame. > > Hardly a real-life situation (the planet will be rotating and a > satellite needs to orbit it in order not to fall down on it); > but OK, I bite for the sake of argument. > It is indeed a very real-life situation. The gravitational blue shift of the SV signal is Δf/f = 5.2996e-10 The kinetic red shift (due to motion) is Δf/f = -0.8349e-10 The total(gravitational + kinetic) blue shift is Δf/f = 4.4647e-10 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18dc8901ad3d2b79$145589$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674263 |
On 10/8/2026 10:58 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.10.2026 06:56, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 07.10.2026 20:27, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:>>> where E₀ is the kinetic energy at r, >>>>> and E₀+ΔE is the kinetic energy at R. >>>> >>>> What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass >>>> cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum >>>> does not change either. >>>> >>>> Yes, the energy of received light is different on the ground than >>>> at the emitter in outer space; but not because of its motion towards >>>> the ground, but because it was emitted in a different reference >>>> frame where more proper time elapses than on the ground. >>>> You seem to have lost the context. >>> >>> ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 is the gravitational blue shift >>> observed on the ground when the em-signal is sent from >>> 26561763 m above the ground. >> >> That depends on where the ground is, and what the mass M of the >> curvature-generating object is, as I derived in >> <mid:119a9s8$182fs$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> >> >> f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂), >> >> where m = G M/c², and r₁ and r₂ are Schwarzschild radial coordinates. >> >>> Both the emitter and the receiver are stationary in the ECI-frame. >> >> Hardly a real-life situation (the planet will be rotating and a >> satellite needs to orbit it in order not to fall down on it); >> but OK, I bite for the sake of argument. >> > > It is indeed a very real-life situation. > > > The gravitational blue shift of the SV signal is Δf/f = 5.2996e-10 > The kinetic red shift (due to motion) is Δf/f = -0.8349e-10 > The total(gravitational + kinetic) blue shift is Δf/f = 4.4647e-10 > > And the measurement result is 24h instead predicted by The Shit 24h+38us. Even such a disgusting piece lying shit as you are can't lie non stop, so sometimes you admit it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11aa03o$1rpsj$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674263 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.10.2026 06:56, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Both the emitter and the receiver are stationary in the ECI-frame. >> >> Hardly a real-life situation (the planet will be rotating and a >> satellite needs to orbit it in order not to fall down on it); >> but OK, I bite for the sake of argument. > > It is indeed a very real-life situation. No; learn comprehensive reading. > [irrelevant figures] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18dc75b58094bb19$144820$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674234 |
On 10/7/2026 8:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > What are you talking about or getting at? An object with non-zero mass > cannot move at c, let alone faster; and the speed of light in vacuum > does not change either. Even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to withdraw from it quietly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <18dbf2ec776c9678$3685$2337915$4036de63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674117 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling >>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to >>> c(1+5.24e-10) >>> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree? >> >> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. > > Correct because he was unaware that there is such a thing. The concept > of electromagnetism was introduced by Hans Christian Ørsted in 1821, > confirmed by Michael Faraday the same year, following experiments by him > and Faraday. Based on Faraday's rather vague idea of "invisible light > emanating from a wire", electromagnetic waves were postulated by James > Clerk Maxwell in 1864, and experimentally confirmed by Heinrich Hertz in > 1888, afterwards. > > <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw? list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=368> > > <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw? list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=2817> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Michael_Faraday#Electricity_and_magnetism> > >> He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with >> radius r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by: >> Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s > Note that this is only the formula for free fall from relative rest. > The relevant equation of motion is, assuming the equivalence principle, > > F = m a = m r̈ = −G M m/r² > <==> r̈ = −G M/r². > > It can be solved analytically as follows: > > ṙ r̈ = −G M ṙ/r² > <==> 1/2 d/dt (ṙ²) = G M ṙ/r² <==> d/dt > (ṙ²) = 2 G M ṙ/r² <==> ∫_0^t dt' d/dt' ṙ(t')² = 2 G M ∫_0^t dt' > ṙ(t')/r(t')² <==> ṙ(t)² − ṙ(0)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − > 1/r(0)] > <==> ṙ(t)² = 2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)² <==> > ṙ(t) = √(2 G M [1/r(t) − 1/r(0)] + ṙ(0)²). > >> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then >> the speed when it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5) > > JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was > wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and gravitational > blueshift is observed instead. ...looks like all you Einstein fanatics are going bonkers....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a33l7$190o4$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674203 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling >>>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to >>>> c(1+5.24e-10) >>>> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree? >>> >>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. >> >> Correct because he was unaware that there is such a thing. The concept >> of electromagnetism was introduced by Hans Christian Ørsted in 1821, >> confirmed by Michael Faraday the same year, following experiments by him >> and Faraday. Based on Faraday's rather vague idea of "invisible light >> emanating from a wire", electromagnetic waves were postulated by James >> Clerk Maxwell in 1864, and experimentally confirmed by Heinrich Hertz in >> 1888, afterwards. >> >> <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=368> >> >> <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=2817> >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday#Electricity_and_magnetism> >> >>> [...] >>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then >>> the speed when it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5) >> >> JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was >> wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and gravitational >> blueshift is observed instead. > > ...looks like all you Einstein fanatics are going bonkers.... It is not the problem of reality if it is different from your ideas; it is _your_ problem. Have you watched the referred videos and read the referred article yet? If not, you are not qualified to talk about this. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18dc097707302f81$13547$16561$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674204 |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 17:21:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson: >>>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the >>>>> falling signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to >>>>> c(1+5.24e-10) >>>>> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree? >>>> >>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. >>> >>> Correct because he was unaware that there is such a thing. The >>> concept of electromagnetism was introduced by Hans Christian Ørsted in >>> 1821, confirmed by Michael Faraday the same year, following >>> experiments by him and Faraday. Based on Faraday's rather vague idea >>> of "invisible light emanating from a wire", electromagnetic waves were >>> postulated by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864, and experimentally >>> confirmed by Heinrich Hertz in 1888, afterwards. >>> >>> <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw? list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=368> >>> >>> <https://youtu.be/6cHV8UGtkVw? list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&t=2817> >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Michael_Faraday#Electricity_and_magnetism> >>> >>>> [...] >>>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 If the object's initial speed of the body is c, >>>> then the speed when it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5) >>> >>> JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was >>> wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and >>> gravitational blueshift is observed instead. >> >> ...looks like all you Einstein fanatics are going bonkers.... > > It is not the problem of reality if it is different from your ideas; it > is _your_ problem. > > Have you watched the referred videos and read the referred article yet? > If not, you are not qualified to talk about this. Your mathematics is completely wrong. You have no idea. Like Paul Andersen, you are claiming that a GPS signal will increase speed by 9753 m/s in 0.067 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a61nl$1fuqs$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674212 |
HenryWilson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 17:21:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the
>>>>>> falling signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to
>>>>>> c(1+5.24e-10)
>>>>>> ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Δv/c = 3.251e-5 If the object's initial speed of the body is c,
>>>>> then the speed when it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5)
>>>>
>>>> JFTR: Any predicted value different from c would prove that Newton was
>>>> wrong as the speed of light is the same on the ground, and
>>>> gravitational blueshift is observed instead.
>>>
>>> ...looks like all you Einstein fanatics are going bonkers....
>>
>> It is not the problem of reality if it is different from your ideas; it
>> is _your_ problem.
>>
>> Have you watched the referred videos and read the referred article yet?
>> If not, you are not qualified to talk about this.
>
> Your mathematics is completely wrong. You have no idea. Like Paul
> Andersen, you are claiming that a GPS signal will increase speed by 9753
> m/s in 0.067 seconds.
No, I have claimed nothing of the sort, and neither has Paul Andersen.
He showed you what Newtonian mechanics would _actually_ have to say
about this, which is _still_ wrong.
Learn comprehensive reading.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18dcd006c858a3e4$1$2634263$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674230 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:06:44 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 17:21:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Have you watched the referred videos and read the referred article >>> yet? >>> If not, you are not qualified to talk about this. >> >> Your mathematics is completely wrong. You have no idea. Like Paul >> Andersen, you are claiming that a GPS signal will increase speed by >> 9753 m/s in 0.067 seconds. > > No, I have claimed nothing of the sort, and neither has Paul Andersen. > He showed you what Newtonian mechanics would _actually_ have to say > about this, which is _still_ wrong. > > Learn comprehensive reading. Paul had the courage to humbly admit he was very wrong. why don't you do the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11aahta$1sece$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674296 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:06:44 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 17:21:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:36:55 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Have you watched the referred videos and read the referred article >>>> yet? >>>> If not, you are not qualified to talk about this. >>> >>> Your mathematics is completely wrong. You have no idea. Like Paul >>> Andersen, you are claiming that a GPS signal will increase speed by >>> 9753 m/s in 0.067 seconds. >> >> No, I have claimed nothing of the sort, and neither has Paul Andersen. >> He showed you what Newtonian mechanics would _actually_ have to say >> about this, which is _still_ wrong. >> >> Learn comprehensive reading. > > Paul had the courage to humbly admit he was very wrong. why don't you do > the same. There is no logic in admitting something that is not true. My mathematics is _correct_, and I have _never_ claimed that "a GPS signal will increase speed by 9753 m/s in 0.067 seconds." Learn comprehensive reading. "Learn clear thought: learn to know what is from what seems to be, and what you wish to be." --Surak -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web