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 | 20 on this page of 286 — 17 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 "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 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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <K9gxS.7543$Nbkf.4568@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674202 |
Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>> That just happens to be exactly the fractional increase in speed of the
>>> falling signals...quite a coincidence Paul, wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> Signals do not increase their speed as they fall.
>> However, Newton predicts that the increased speed of the falling signal
>> is Δv/c = 3.251e-5 , not 5.3e-10
What is falling is Newton's corpuscles (partcles).
> Really? Does it really increase speed by 9742 m/s? Maybe you have
> forgotten how to integrate.
No. I made a blunder!
9742 m/s is the final speed if the initial speed of the particle
was zero.
ΔE is the increase in the energy from the GPS orbit a distance r
from the centre of the Earth, to the surface a distance R from
Earth's centre.
E₀ is the initial kinetic energy at r.
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.
E₀ = m⋅v₀²/2
According to Newton:
ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9
According to GR:
ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10
v = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)+v₀²)
Δv = v - v₀
If v₀ = c, v = 299792458.1584 m/s, Δv = v-c = 0.1584 m/s
Δv/c = 5.284e-10
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dc637b57119c3d$2553$1684987$4206dc53@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674216 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:16:13 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>>> That just happens to be exactly the fractional increase in speed of >>>> the falling signals...quite a coincidence Paul, wouldn't you agree? >>> >>> Signals do not increase their speed as they fall. >>> However, Newton predicts that the increased speed of the falling >>> signal is Δv/c = 3.251e-5 , not 5.3e-10 > > What is falling is Newton's corpuscles (partcles). > >> Really? Does it really increase speed by 9742 m/s? Maybe you have >> forgotten how to integrate. > > No. I made a blunder! ..but not your first one... ...and rabbit brain Lahn didn't even notice it. > 9742 m/s is the final speed if the initial speed of the particle was > zero. > > ΔE is the increase in the energy from the GPS orbit a distance r from > the centre of the Earth, to the surface a distance R from Earth's > centre. > E₀ is the initial kinetic energy at r. > > 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. > E₀ = m⋅v₀²/2 > > According to Newton: > ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9 > > According to GR: > ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 > > v = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)+v₀²) > Δv = v - v₀ > > If v₀ = c, v = 299792458.1584 m/s, Δv = v-c = 0.1584 m/s > > Δv/c = 5.284e-10 As I said, the same as Newton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <11a21ul$17s8s$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674117 |
[Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting]
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
<==> ∫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)
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.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) |
| Message-ID | <11a386i$u2hg$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #674200 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] > > 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. this pointedhead inbreed wanker is a former now obsolete it-supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <4LydnahnhNJvu1j3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674205 |
On 10/06/2026 09:38 AM, Voil Babloev wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] >> >> 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. > > this pointedhead inbreed wanker is a former now obsolete it-supporter > Don't be belittling former now obsolete IT-supporters. They might unionize. Since software engineers were never properly considered "engineers" with the usual account that "engineers must make things good for humanity", if you've never heard of the engineer's creed bit, and they rarely made an account of trade unions, there are lots of loose heads who are quite knowledgeable about the IT stacks, which largely are a homogenous monoculture of bog-standard commonality. They're still the dinosaurs again is what I'm saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <FdKcneRmeqKksVj3nZ2dnZfqn_arWE5b@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674207 |
On 10/06/2026 09:50 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/06/2026 09:38 AM, Voil Babloev wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >>> [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] >>> >>> 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. >> >> this pointedhead inbreed wanker is a former now obsolete it-supporter >> > > > Don't be belittling former now obsolete IT-supporters. > > > They might unionize. > > > Since software engineers were never properly considered "engineers" > with the usual account that "engineers must make things good for > humanity", if you've never heard of the engineer's creed bit, > and they rarely made an account of trade unions, there are lots > of loose heads who are quite knowledgeable about the IT stacks, > which largely are a homogenous monoculture of bog-standard commonality. > > > They're still the dinosaurs again is what I'm saying. > > > Something like, an, "Open Professional Society of Software Developers". Open Professional Society
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a3bu9$u2hg$3@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #674207 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/06/2026 09:38 AM, Voil Babloev wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] >>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. >> >> this pointedhead inbreed wanker is a former now obsolete it-supporter > > Don't be belittling former now obsolete IT-supporters. > > > They might unionize. > > > Since software engineers were never properly considered "engineers" > with the usual account that "engineers must make things good for even easier to obsolete, AI doing stuff for you in microseconds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <kL6cnedgCPOWoFj3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674209 |
On 10/06/2026 10:42 AM, Terence Holopov wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 10/06/2026 09:38 AM, Voil Babloev wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] >>>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation. >>> >>> this pointedhead inbreed wanker is a former now obsolete it-supporter >> >> Don't be belittling former now obsolete IT-supporters. >> >> >> They might unionize. >> >> >> Since software engineers were never properly considered "engineers" >> with the usual account that "engineers must make things good for > > even easier to obsolete, AI doing stuff for you in microseconds > Then, it's simple for "AI" to model usual accounts of reasoning so that multiple instances of AI can work or fight it out. Kind of like when "cut the cord" was a thing, "pull the plug".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a42nv$2dtte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674200 |
Den 06.10.2026 07:45, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] > > 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. 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 > 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 > > 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. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18dc38ea83757d0c$13776$16561$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674215 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:13:23 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.10.2026 07:45, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> [Supersedes in order to correct sign error and formatting] >> >> 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. > 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. >> 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....the one I gave you and you said was wrong. It certainly is not a 9746m/s increase as you and rabbit brain claim. How could it be? Can't you even work that out? >> 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. Lying bastard. You are trying to wrigle out of your huge mistake.I gave you Newton's figure along with its derivation. 5.26e-10.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11a67v9$36jc2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674222 |
Den 07.10.2026 12:35, skrev HenryWilson: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:13:23 +0200, 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? It is not "exactly that same fraction". And the similarity is indeed rather coincidental. >> >> 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 >> >> 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....the one I gave you and you said was > wrong. It certainly is not a 9746m/s increase as you and rabbit brain > claim. How could it be? Can't you even work that out? I was wrong, but have corrected it. But Δv/c = 5.284e-10 isn't very significant. >> 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. > > Lying bastard. You are trying to wrigle out of your huge mistake.I gave > you Newton's figure along with its derivation. 5.26e-10. The significant ratio is: GR: ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 Newton: ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9 The difference wondered me a bit because the equation is the same for Newton and GR: ΔE/E₀ = GM/(c²⋅R) - GM/(c²⋅r) = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/r) where the first term is the gravitational potential at the geoid and the second term is the gravitational potential at r. The difference is that in the GR calculation the ellipsoidal shape of the Earth is accounted for. The gravitational potential will have a quadrupole component. The result is that the gravitational potential anywhere on the geoid will be δ = 6.96927e-10 If the Earth had been spherical with radius R = GM/(c²⋅δ) = 6363691 m the gravitational potential would be δ on its surface. With R = 6363691 m we get: ΔE/E₀ = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/r) = 5.2996e-10 GR and Newton predicts the same for ΔE/E₀. ========================================== We know that there are no corpuscles hitting the ground at the speed 299792458.1584 m/s. The photons move at constant speed c, but their frequency increases by Δf/f₀ = 5.2996e-10 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18de07251d72d074$998$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674236 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 21:54:54 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 07.10.2026 12:35, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:13:23 +0200, 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? > > It is not "exactly that same fraction". > And the similarity is indeed rather coincidental. > > >>> 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 >>> >>> 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....the one I gave you and you said was >> wrong. It certainly is not a 9746m/s increase as you and rabbit brain >> claim. How could it be? Can't you even work that out? > > I was wrong, but have corrected it. > > But Δv/c = 5.284e-10 isn't very significant. > > >>> 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. >> >> Lying bastard. You are trying to wrigle out of your huge mistake.I gave >> you Newton's figure along with its derivation. 5.26e-10. > > The significant ratio is: > GR: ΔE/E₀ = 5.2996e-10 Newton: ΔE/E₀ = 1.0599e-9 > > The difference wondered me a bit because the equation is the same for > Newton and GR: > ΔE/E₀ = GM/(c²⋅R) - GM/(c²⋅r) = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/r) where the first term > is the gravitational potential at the geoid and the second term is the > gravitational potential at r. > > The difference is that in the GR calculation the ellipsoidal shape of > the Earth is accounted for. > The gravitational potential will have a quadrupole component. The result > is that the gravitational potential anywhere on the geoid will be δ = > 6.96927e-10 > > If the Earth had been spherical with radius R = GM/(c²⋅δ) = 6363691 m > the gravitational potential would be δ on its surface. > > With R = 6363691 m we get: > ΔE/E₀ = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/r) = 5.2996e-10 > > GR and Newton predicts the same for ΔE/E₀. > ========================================== > > We know that there are no corpuscles hitting the ground at the speed > 299792458.1584 m/s. > > The photons move at constant speed c, but their frequency increases by > Δf/f₀ = 5.2996e-10 Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. If you want to argue, start with a definition of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11akrbp$2n10a$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674367 |
HenryWilson wrote: > Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand that, as it has been explained to you in detail now in <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18de0dff15db3d2a$999$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674371 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. > > It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand that, > as it has been explained to you in detail now in > <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>)z I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11alfpb$2no4e$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674372 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >> >> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand that, >> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) > > I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the source > of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. Learn comprehensive reading. In a nutshell: Light is an electromagnetic wave. A wave has a frequency (and a wavelength). So light has a frequency (and a wavelength). And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, for an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not count, for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was confirmed by Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to your claim, you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught physics at such an institution. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18de2379c6b42549$1016$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674376 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >>> >>> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand >>> that, >>> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >>> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) >> >> I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the >> source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. > > I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit > quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. > Learn comprehensive reading. > > 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 misguided idiot! A wave DOES NOT have a frequency. A moving wavelike object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively moving point. An ocean wave does not oscillate. It causes water molecules to oscillate vertically as it passes. Just run the traveling wave equation on computer. You will just see a frozen sinewave moving across the screen. The whole of modern Physics is riddled with the trivial misconceptions like the ones you are preaching.. > And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, for > an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not count, > for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was confirmed by > Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to your claim, > you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught physics at > such an institution. It is of no concern to me what you think. You have been indoctrinated with a theory that can work but is ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated. My book upgrades Newton and explains how and why the impostor managed to surreptitiously replace him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <DaecnZBncoC7_VP3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674386 |
On 10/13/2026 09:25 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >>>> >>>> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand >>>> that, >>>> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >>>> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) >>> >>> I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the >>> source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. >> >> I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit >> quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. >> Learn comprehensive reading. >> >> 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 misguided idiot! A wave DOES NOT have a frequency. A moving wavelike > object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively moving point. An ocean wave > does not oscillate. It causes water molecules to oscillate vertically as > it passes. Just run the traveling wave equation on computer. You will just > see a frozen sinewave moving across the screen. > > The whole of modern Physics is riddled with the trivial misconceptions > like the ones you are preaching.. > >> And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, for >> an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not count, >> for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was confirmed by >> Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to your claim, >> you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught physics at >> such an institution. > > It is of no concern to me what you think. You have been indoctrinated with > a theory that can work but is ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated. > My book upgrades Newton and explains how and why the impostor managed to > surreptitiously replace him. > Resonances Particle/wave duality and wave/resonance dichotomy pretty much always make that waves make waves and waves have: wave-velocity, wave-amplitude, wave-frequency, and wave-number. Often the "wave-velocity" is left out, among the _implicits_ among various ways to "write the wave equation". So, resonances and waves and particles and waves make for that oscillation & restitution in attenutation & dissipation are always described as decomposed, i.e., describe-able as decompose-able, one big wave. A wave equation describes a shape: a wave-velocity a scale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18def24325a90e5b$3075$2656352$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674389 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:45:07 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/13/2026 09:25 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >>>>> >>>>> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand >>>>> that, >>>>> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >>>>> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) >>>> >>>> I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the >>>> source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. >>> >>> I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit >>> quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. >>> Learn comprehensive reading. >>> >>> 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 misguided idiot! A wave DOES NOT have a frequency. A moving >> wavelike object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively moving point. >> An ocean wave does not oscillate. It causes water molecules to >> oscillate vertically as it passes. Just run the traveling wave equation >> on computer. You will just see a frozen sinewave moving across the >> screen. >> >> The whole of modern Physics is riddled with the trivial misconceptions >> like the ones you are preaching.. >> >>> And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, >>> for an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not >>> count, for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was >>> confirmed by Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to >>> your claim, you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught >>> physics at such an institution. >> >> It is of no concern to me what you think. You have been indoctrinated >> with a theory that can work but is ridiculously and unnecessarily >> complicated. My book upgrades Newton and explains how and why the >> impostor managed to surreptitiously replace him. >> >> > > Resonances > > Particle/wave duality and wave/resonance dichotomy pretty much always > make that waves make waves and waves have: wave-velocity, > wave-amplitude, wave-frequency, and wave-number. No there is no 'wave frequency. The people who taught you are just as ignorant. > Often the "wave-velocity" is left out, among the _implicits_ among > various ways to "write the wave equation". Traveling waves have a phase velocity and a group velocity. > So, resonances and waves and particles and waves make for that > oscillation & restitution in attenutation & dissipation are always > described as decomposed, i.e., describe-able as decompose-able, one big > wave. What nonsense was that? > A wave equation describes a shape: a wave-velocity a scale. Stick to writing words, Ross.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11ao94q$2uj6v$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674386 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >>>> >>>> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand >>>> that, >>>> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >>>> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) >>> >>> I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the >>> source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. >> >> I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit >> quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. >> Learn comprehensive reading. >> >> 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 misguided idiot! You are mirroring well. > A wave DOES NOT have a frequency. It does. > A moving wavelike object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively > moving point. Which part of "frequencies are not 'induced'" in my previous follow-up did you not understand? > An ocean wave does not oscillate. The water oscillates up and down. An ocean wave is therefore a transversal wave. > It causes water molecules to oscillate vertically as it passes. No, the propagating oscillation of the water _makes_ the wave. It _is_ the wave. The wave does not exist independently. It is a _result_, NOT a cause. > Just run the traveling wave equation on computer. BTDT. > You will just see a frozen sinewave moving across the screen. It is not necessarily a sine wave, as any superposition (sum) of wave functions is also a solution of the wave equation, as it is a partial differential equation. That aside: True, but irrelevant. Again, consider a _fixed_ point in space that the wave passes by. Then answer (yourself) those questions: - What are the wave values (amplitudes) that it experiences over time? - If you plot those values in a time--amplitude plot, how does it look? - What is therefore the period of that wave? - What is therefore the frequency of that wave? (The choice of point was /arbitrary/.) - How does this frequency change if the point is moving relative to the source of the wave (or vice-versa)? (I already showed and explained to you all of this.) > The whole of modern Physics is riddled with the trivial misconceptions > like the ones you are preaching.. No, the misconceptions are yours. >> And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, for >> an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not count, >> for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was confirmed by >> Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to your claim, >> you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught physics at >> such an institution. > > It is of no concern to me what you think. Then why are you making (nonsensical) arguments here? :-D -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18def63875a65fa5$3078$2656352$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674424 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 18:03:36 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:38:34 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:50:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> Light does not have a 'frequency' Paul. >>>>> >>>>> It does. (You are apparently just not smart enough to understand >>>>> that, >>>>> as it has been explained to you in detail now in >>>>> <mid:11aac2a$1s81k$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>) >>>> >>>> I don't want some remote idiot to tel me. I want YOU to define the >>>> source of oscillation that gives light a 'frequency'. >>> >>> I already did it in the posting referred above, and again by explicit >>> quotation in my followup to your hysterical (and hilarious) fit. >>> Learn comprehensive reading. >>> >>> 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 misguided idiot! > > You are mirroring well. > >> A wave DOES NOT have a frequency. > > It does. > >> A moving wavelike object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively moving >> point. > Which part of "frequencies are not 'induced'" in my previous follow-up > did you not understand? It is hard to understand anything you say because it is so unscientific. >> An ocean wave does not oscillate. > > The water oscillates up and down. An ocean wave is therefore a > transversal wave. > >> It causes water molecules to oscillate vertically as it passes. > > No, the propagating oscillation of the water _makes_ the wave. > It _is_ the wave. ..so how does the wave transmit energy? You are good at causes. You think an acceleration will cause a force. >> Just run the traveling wave equation on computer. > > BTDT. > >> You will just see a frozen sinewave moving across the screen. > > It is not necessarily a sine wave, as any superposition (sum) of wave > functions is also a solution of the wave equation, as it is a partial > differential equation. I didn't tell you to include more than one wave > That aside: > > True, but irrelevant. Again, consider a _fixed_ point in space that the > wave passes by. > > Then answer (yourself) those questions: > > - What are the wave values (amplitudes) that it experiences over time? - > If you plot those values in a time--amplitude plot, how does it look? - > What is therefore the period of that wave? > - What is therefore the frequency of that wave? (The choice of point > was /arbitrary/.) > - How does this frequency change if the point is moving relative to the > source of the wave (or vice-versa)? have you ever had an IQ test? If you haven't, Don't be tempted because you might be very disappointed. Look at this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/ Electromagneticwave3D.gif? utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail_unscaled > (I already showed and explained to you all of this.) In the animation, can you not see that the red and blue wave is NOT oscillating? The moving arrows show what will be detected at a passing point. A plot of the arrow movement will produce exactly the same static wave. >> The whole of modern Physics is riddled with the trivial misconceptions >> like the ones you are preaching.. > > No, the misconceptions are yours. > >>> And if you would ever have taught physics (at a proper institution, >>> for an extended period of time; failed substitute teacher does not >>> count, for example) you would know that (it isn't exactly new, was >>> confirmed by Hertz in 1888 already). Which tells me that, contrary to >>> your claim, you are neither a physicist nor have you seriously taught >>> physics at such an institution. >> >> It is of no concern to me what you think. > > Then why are you making (nonsensical) arguments here? :-D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web