Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422708 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-16 08:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 18:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 04:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 07:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 09:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 12:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 15:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 03:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Michiko Obryan <ucyiknruc@whmyowwwnk.rn> - 2017-06-18 09:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 13:44 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 11:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:07 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 15:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 21:56 -0400
What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:01 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:16 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:27 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-22 17:26 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:36 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 03:01 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:33 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-24 17:30 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:10 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 21:14 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-24 21:07 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-24 23:15 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-26 23:52 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:12 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-24 18:14 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:33 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:47 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 09:07 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-01 01:13 +0200
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 19:26 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:25 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:52 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:36 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:41 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 00:28 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 23:55 -0400
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 04:44 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:05 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 06:29 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-03 06:35 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:40 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 13:46 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-04 03:08 +0000
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-04 00:14 -0700
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-01 11:35 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:37 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 21:23 -0500
Re: What Science actually is, TODAY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-26 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 14:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:09 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 13:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 14:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-18 14:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 14:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 15:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 09:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 18:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> - 2017-06-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 10:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 22:07 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 23:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:17 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 09:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:26 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 19:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:21 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:32 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 13:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 20:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-18 04:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 12:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Hibukure Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-17 14:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-17 14:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-17 14:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:16 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> - 2017-06-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 22:07 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 02:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-18 01:01 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 00:43 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 11:49 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:10 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 00:27 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-18 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-18 20:04 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-18 20:16 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-06-19 17:19 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-19 17:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 09:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 14:51 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ivovanho Títu <ivotatu@ufroaw.ho> - 2017-06-19 19:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-19 21:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-19 23:55 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-19 14:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 16:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 23:33 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-20 05:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 06:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:14 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:41 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:56 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-21 09:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 08:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-20 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-20 08:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 11:23 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-21 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-21 23:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-21 21:48 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 08:31 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 00:26 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 08:38 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:15 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:12 +0000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 18:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 13:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:25 -0500
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi47j8$1nvv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422852 |
Ed Lake wrote: > The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will > ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. If you are stationary, the light will > ARRIVE later for you even if the "event" occurred when we were in the > same spot. At what speed is the event being perceived travelling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37aa7365-e444-485b-be6a-c0a02cb8a5f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422853 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 4:39:57 PM UTC-5, Isichi Yoku wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will > > ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. If you are stationary, the light will > > ARRIVE later for you even if the "event" occurred when we were in the > > same spot. > > At what speed is the event being perceived travelling? The event is not traveling. The event is a lightning strike at some point on Earth. The OBSERVERS of the lightning strike may or may not be traveling. I'm signing off for today. Sayonara. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Isichi Yoku <uuzyku@ywiwoz.ua> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi48v1$1ofi$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422860 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 4:39:57 PM UTC-5, Isichi Yoku wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >> >> > The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will >> > ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. If you are stationary, the light >> > will ARRIVE later for you even if the "event" occurred when we were >> > in the same spot. >> >> At what speed is the event being perceived travelling? > > The event is not traveling. The event is a lightning strike at some > point on Earth. The OBSERVERS of the lightning strike may or may not be > traveling. I'm signing off for today. This is what losers does. > Sayonara. Same to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 03:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2875522.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422853 |
The ’nym-shifting troll again failed at basic English as "Isichi Yoku": > Ed Lake wrote: >> The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will >> ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. No, it arrives sooner at you because you are then *closer* to the source of the light. The light has to travel a *shorter distance* to you than if you had not moved towards the source, and it does so at the *same* constant speed as it always does. >> If you are stationary, the light will ARRIVE later for you even if the >> "event" occurred when we were in the same spot. Assuming optically equivalent media, that is correct. Because the speed of light is the same for *all* observers (no matter their relative velocity) across optically equivalent media. That peculiar property of light has been experimentally confirmed countless times. > At what speed is the event being perceived travelling? He did not write that the event is traveling. That would not make sense anyway. An event is a position in spacetime, an occurrence which can be assigned spatial and temporal coordinates. *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michiko Obryan <ucyiknruc@whmyowwwnk.rn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 09:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi5g5b$188j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422873 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > The ’nym-shifting troll again failed at basic English as "Isichi Yoku": "at basic Rnglish", stupid kraut?? >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will >>> ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. > > No, it arrives sooner at you because you are then *closer* to the source Then tell him, pointy. But you are stupid anyway. Severely uneducated. >> At what speed is the event being perceived travelling? > > He did not write that the event is traveling. That would not make sense > anyway. An event is a position in spacetime, an occurrence which can be > assigned spatial and temporal coordinates. *PLONK* Cretin, what part of 'perceived' you don't understand. An event is a _'position'_ in space time?? A point, cretin. What a moron, also complaining about other genuine posters use of English. But is not even a point in spacetime, pointy. You are both stupid and wrong (again, I suppose). That event HAS TO TAKE PLACE, then a point is assigned. That's the main feature that characterize an EVENT, pointy. Taking place. It reveals what is been said before, by the many others, that you are a severely UNEDUCATED POS. From now on you have to address Dr. Isichi by the term of _Doctor_ in your conversations. And be submissive from now on. What a morons, this pointy, I just sit an wonder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 13:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7307033.T7Z3S40VBb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #422884 |
The ‘nym-shifting troll trolled as "Michiko Obryan": > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The ’nym-shifting troll again failed at basic English as "Isichi Yoku": > > "at basic Rnglish", [invective] No, “at basic _English_”. >>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>> The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will >>>> ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. >> No, it arrives sooner at you because you are then *closer* to the source > > Then tell him, pointy. I did. > [invectives] > >>> At what speed is the event being perceived travelling? >> >> He did not write that the event is traveling. That would not make sense >> anyway. An event is a position in spacetime, an occurrence which can be >> assigned spatial and temporal coordinates. *PLONK* > > [invective], what part of 'perceived' you don't understand. Events do not travel in the first place. So your idea of the speed of an event is nonsense. > An event is a _'position'_ in space time?? In _spacetime_, yes. > A point, [invective]. That term is equivalent. > […] > But is not even a point in spacetime, pointy. Yes it is. > [invectives, nonsense] I pity you for you will probably never be able to understand “the marvelous structure of reality” (Albert Einstein). *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julianna Eliason <nujasenea@wiwnwajau.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi61u3$43e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422895 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> [invective], what part of 'perceived' you don't understand. > > Events do not travel in the first place. So your idea of the speed of > an event is nonsense. Pointy persists being stupid having no idea what the term "perceived" is standing for. What a shame. >> An event is a _'position'_ in space time?? > > In _spacetime_, yes. > >> A point, [invective]. > > That term is equivalent. Pointy shamelessly snips the few word proving, his now legendary lack of education. The "position" equivalent to "point". What an imbecile, with a stupid name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi8ksk$1tpb$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422895 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> An event is a _'position'_ in space time?? > > In _spacetime_, yes. > >> A point, [invective]. > > That term is equivalent. Position, Speed and Acceleration (at least) are tight related to Motion. How can those be equivalent to points. Are you out of your mind? Or rather poor, unemployed and uneducated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e01389d9-52a5-48b1-bbf8-1c2aab0ebc5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422873 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > The ’nym-shifting troll again failed at basic English as "Isichi Yoku": > > > Ed Lake wrote: > >> The light ARRIVES sooner when I am moving toward an event, it will > >> ARRIVE sooner due to my velocity. > > No, it arrives sooner at you because you are then *closer* to the source of > the light. The light has to travel a *shorter distance* to you than if you > had not moved towards the source, and it does so at the *same* constant > speed as it always does. Agreed. The light arrives sooner because I am closer. But the REASON I am closer is because I am MOVING toward the source. I also agree that the light will be traveling at c. The question is: If I could measure the ARRIVAL speed of the light, would it be c or would it be c + v, where v is my velocity? I say it is c + v because I am moving. If you IGNORE the fact that I am moving and just determine the speed as if I were STATIONARY at the spot where the light reached me, then the light would arrive at c. That appears to be what mathematicians do. They ignore what they cannot deal with. So, they assume that I am stationary at one point, then a millisecond later I am stationary at another point, and a millisecond later I am stationary at another point, etc., etc., etc. That way, light always arrives at c. I guess it's a way of avoiding reality so that the mathematics will work. > > >> If you are stationary, the light will ARRIVE later for you even if the > >> "event" occurred when we were in the same spot. > > Assuming optically equivalent media, that is correct. Because the speed of > light is the same for *all* observers (no matter their relative velocity) > across optically equivalent media. That peculiar property of light has been > experimentally confirmed countless times. NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3338de2a-976b-4f19-bc7d-042938ca86a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422907 |
El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > Ed I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adea7125-3c61-40ee-932c-c9718e00f1c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422915 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 18 de junio de 2017, 11:47:13 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > NO IT HASN'T!!!!! The experiments you BELIEVE support the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" DO NOT INVOLVE ANY MOVING OBSERVERS. They only show that the speed of the EMITTER does not change the speed of light. > > > > Ed > > I think you are quite wrong. Light signals have some other characteristics besides the speed (which it appears you agree is always c, at least from the emitter side). > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our observatories, for example) I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue-shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c for "all observers." The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.” Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9a59b2a-44de-4c95-a5be-e33c42631780@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422919 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations > > we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around > > the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. > > Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration > > and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the > > speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our > > observatories, for example) > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is > moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near > the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue- > shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we > move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move > toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. That "proves" no such thing. Since c = f*lambda, and f is known to increase with approaching v, increased light-speed means that wavelength (lambda) is invariant. This is obviously not the case. Logical argument: A blue light source right beside an observer. It has a wavelength of 400 nm. A red light source with wavelength 650 nm is approaching the observer. The red light will be blue-shifted by the relative motion, to blue light for large enough v. So now the observer sees two blue lights that have widely different wavelengths, one with 400 nm and the other with 650 nm. This is totally asinine, so the only way out of this asininity is for both light beams to have 400 nm wavelength. Hence f increases and lambda decreases, resulting in maintaining a light- speed of c. > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. You misunderstood what Einstein said. > But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c > for "all observers." Which is EXACTLY what Einstein showed in his proof. > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are > experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic > electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that > light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that > means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. > It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space > with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > the EMITTING body.” > > Ed And the emitting body was moving in those cases. In addition, the LLR experiments and communication with space probes confirm that light from moving sources travel at c. Denial of reality is a disease.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi6k7e$10nk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422924 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > So now the observer sees two blue lights that have widely different > wavelengths, one with 400 nm and the other with 650 nm. Impossible. Lol, that I need to emphasise. What you do is directly illegal. Gary proves he doesn't understand Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3910c943-05c2-4024-a731-1c621a416e74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422925 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:27:47 PM UTC-5, Rhett Doucet wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > So now the observer sees two blue lights that have widely different > > wavelengths, one with 400 nm and the other with 650 nm. > > Impossible. Lol, that I need to emphasise. What you do is directly > illegal. Gary proves he doesn't understand Relativity. Right. He doesn't seem to understand that only one has 400 nm wavelength and the other actually has 650 nm wavelength BUT APPEARS TO BE 400 nm wavelength because of the speed at which it arrives. The equipment used to measure wave lengths ASSUMES STANDARD WAVELENGTHS for THE STANDARD SPEED OF LIGHT MEASURED IN A LAB. Thus, if light arrives at c + v from some source outside the lab the equipment will ASSUME it to arrive at c and will thereby give a FALSE reading for its wavelength. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi6sih$1dvt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422934 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:27:47 PM UTC-5, Rhett Doucet wrote: >> Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> > So now the observer sees two blue lights that have widely different >> > wavelengths, one with 400 nm and the other with 650 nm. >> >> Impossible. Lol, that I need to emphasise. What you do is directly >> illegal. Gary proves he doesn't understand Relativity. > > Right. He doesn't seem to understand that only one has 400 nm > wavelength and the other actually has 650 nm wavelength BUT APPEARS TO > BE 400 nm wavelength because of the speed at which it arrives. :) > The equipment used to measure wave lengths ASSUMES STANDARD WAVELENGTHS > for THE STANDARD SPEED OF LIGHT MEASURED IN A LAB. :) > Thus, if light arrives at c + v from some source outside the lab the > equipment will ASSUME it to arrive at c and will thereby give a FALSE > reading for its wavelength. Ed You are just great. The most novel interpretation of Relativity till today. Surpasses IRT and Model Mechanics of the Moving Bodies by many, many lengths. Thanks. I think you have a valid point. Which would likely make perfectly sense, as seen from a different perspective.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi93sk$qbd$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422934 |
On 6/18/17 3:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The equipment used to measure wave lengths ASSUMES STANDARD WAVELENGTHS for THE STANDARD SPEED OF LIGHT MEASURED IN A LAB. Flat out false. The wavelength is directly measurable. Do you really have no idea how a diffraction grating measures the arriving wavelength? There is no assumption of anything made. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9b869c9-b406-40d7-b100-e8855d8c513b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422924 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:29:01 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > Those characteristics are the wavelength and the frequency. For generations > > > we have known Earth is moving around the Sun and the Sun is moving around > > > the center of our Galaxy, which in turn is moving through the Local Group. > > > Such movement produces several effects on the light we receive (aberration > > > and Doppler), and with the appropiate equipment we are able to measure the > > > speed of light from the point of view of the receiver (in our > > > observatories, for example) > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is > > moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near > > the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue- > > shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we > > move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move > > toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > That "proves" no such thing. Since c = f*lambda, and f is known to increase > with approaching v, increased light-speed means that wavelength (lambda) is > invariant. This is obviously not the case. Let's see if I can translate that into English: You're saying that since the speed of light is equal to the frequency of the light times its wavelength, and the frequency is known to increase for an object that is approaching at high velocity, increased light-speed (????) means that the wavelength is must always be the same. And you believe "that is obviously not the case." The problem, as I see it, is your inexplicable BELIEF that the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency changes. You seem to accept that the frequency will increase when you approach a source of light, but for some inexplicable reason you seem to think that means the wavelength cannot remain the same. Obviously, that is NOT true. The frequency will change because MORE LIGHT WAVES are reaching you in a given amount of time. Just look at light as if it were a picket fence that is ten feet long with five pickets per foot. If you are moving along the picket fence, the pickets will pass at different rates depending upon your speed. The distance between the pickets (the "wavelength) will always remain the same. You will just cover that distance in a shorter period of time, so the wavelength will APPEAR shorter. Why would you think the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency changes? Light is like the picket fence. It doesn't really change. Is it PERCEIVED and MEASURED to be different when an observer is moving. > > Logical argument: A blue light source right beside an observer. It has a > wavelength of 400 nm. A red light source with wavelength 650 nm is > approaching the observer. The red light will be blue-shifted by the > relative motion, to blue light for large enough v. So now the observer > sees two blue lights that have widely different wavelengths, one with 400 > nm and the other with 650 nm. This is totally asinine, so the only way > out of this asininity is for both light beams to have 400 nm wavelength. > Hence f increases and lambda decreases, resulting in maintaining a light- > speed of c. > Actually, it is perfectly logical. The railroad example explains that if you are traveling toward the source of light, it will APPEAR blue-shifted because the FREQUENCY will increase, which makes the WAVELENGTH APPEAR shorter. If you are traveling away from the source of light, it will APPEAR red-shifted because the FREQUENCY will decrease, which makes the WAVELENGTH APPEAR longer. If you are not moving with respect to the source of light, it will be "natural" and neither blue- nor red-shifted. It appears your argument is based upon your BELIEF that light is always c, therefore it CANNOT APPEAR to be something other than c. > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. > > You misunderstood what Einstein said. > > > But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c > > for "all observers." > > Which is EXACTLY what Einstein showed in his proof. Nonsense. Einstein argued just the opposite. > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are > > experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic > > electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that > > light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that > > means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it doesn't. > > Yes, it does. > > > It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space > > with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > > the EMITTING body.” > > > > Ed > > And the emitting body was moving in those cases. In addition, the LLR > experiments and communication with space probes confirm that light from > moving sources travel at c. Denial of reality is a disease. Yes, that is MY POINT. The EMITTING BODY was moving in those cases. So, the light will be measured to travel at c. That is what Einstein said and I have been saying. But THERE IS NO MOVING OBSERVER in those experiments OTHER THAN THE EMITTER. So, when mathematician-physicists say that the speed of light will be the same for ALL OBSERVERS, they have NO evidence to support that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fd7d76b-795e-4665-863b-f9a00fbab513@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422932 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:11:58 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:29:01 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is > > > moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near > > > the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue- > > > shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we > > > move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move > > > toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > > > That "proves" no such thing. Since c = f*lambda, and f is known to increase > > with approaching v, increased light-speed means that wavelength (lambda) is > > invariant. This is obviously not the case. > > Let's see if I can translate that into English: It IS in English. Can't you READ? > You're saying that since the speed of light is equal to the frequency of > the light times its wavelength, and the frequency is known to increase > for an object that is approaching at high velocity, increased light-speed > (????) means that the wavelength is must always be the same. And you > believe "that is obviously not the case." > > The problem, as I see it, is your inexplicable BELIEF that the wavelength > cannot remain the same if the frequency changes. The problem as I see it is your inexplicable false belief that the wavelength does NOT change. > You seem to accept that the frequency will increase when you approach a > source of light, but for some inexplicable reason you seem to think that > means the wavelength cannot remain the same. It's not "inexplicable" as I gave you a detailed proof that the result of invariant wavelength leads to outrageous asininity. > Obviously, that is NOT true. The frequency will change because MORE LIGHT > WAVES are reaching you in a given amount of time. Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > Just look at light as if it were a picket fence ... [more bull plop deleted > that was delivered from ignorance] > .... > Why would you think the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency > changes? Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > Light is like the picket fence. No, it's not. You have foisted a false analogy in hopes of remaining in ignorance of reality. > It doesn't really change. Is it PERCEIVED and MEASURED to be different when > an observer is moving. Doubletalk! What do you think the difference between "perceived" and "measured" is? "Perceived" is accomplished by MEASUREMENT. Good grief! > > Logical argument: A blue light source right beside an observer. It has a > > wavelength of 400 nm. A red light source with wavelength 650 nm is > > approaching the observer. The red light will be blue-shifted by the > > relative motion, to blue light for large enough v. So now the observer > > sees two blue lights that have widely different wavelengths, one with 400 > > nm and the other with 650 nm. This is totally asinine, so the only way > > out of this asininity is for both light beams to have 400 nm wavelength. > > Hence f increases and lambda decreases, resulting in maintaining a light- > > speed of c. > > Actually, it is perfectly logical. The railroad example explains that if > you are traveling toward the source of light, it will APPEAR blue-shifted > because the FREQUENCY will increase, which makes the WAVELENGTH APPEAR > shorter. So you believe that your eyes are fooled? Do you also believe diffraction gratings are fooled? > [More disingenuous bull plop deleted] > It appears your argument is based upon your BELIEF that light is always c, > therefore it CANNOT APPEAR to be something other than c. It appears that your argument is based on your BELIEF that spectrometers are fooled when they MEASURE the wavelength of Doppler-shifted light. Spectrometers do NOT measure frequency. Didn't you get the memo? > > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. > > > > You misunderstood what Einstein said. > > > > > But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c > > > for "all observers." > > > > Which is EXACTLY what Einstein showed in his proof. > > Nonsense. Einstein argued just the opposite. You are fatally mistaken. It comes from being blind-sided from your false belief system. > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are > > > experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic > > > electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that > > > light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that > > > means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it > > > doesn't. > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > > It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space > > > with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > > > the EMITTING body.” > > > > > > Ed > > > > And the emitting body was moving in those cases. In addition, the LLR > > experiments and communication with space probes confirm that light from > > moving sources travel at c. Denial of reality is a disease. > > Yes, that is MY POINT. The EMITTING BODY was moving in those cases. So, > the light will be measured to travel at c. Not in the frame of the receiver, according to your false belief system. > That is what Einstein said and I have been saying. Don't kid yourself, bub. You are NOT in agreement with Einstein. > But THERE IS NO MOVING OBSERVER in those experiments OTHER THAN THE EMITTER. Spacecraft are moving wrt the earth, at up to 50 km/sec. They represent a moving receiver AND a moving emitter. > So, when mathematician-physicists say that the speed of light will be the > same for ALL OBSERVERS, they have NO evidence to support that. > > Ed Au contraire, cochon menteur. Only those blinded by their own false belief system deny the pervasive evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ec220fe-2d5d-4b66-bf4e-aa11c6202f11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422943 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:52:30 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:11:58 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:29:01 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree. The annual Doppler effect is a good example. When the earth is > > > > moving toward a star that is stationary relative to us and is located near > > > > the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth, the light is blue- > > > > shifted when we move toward it, and red-shifted six months later when we > > > > move away from it. That proves that light arrives at c + v when we move > > > > toward that star and at c - v when we move away from that star. > > > > > > That "proves" no such thing. Since c = f*lambda, and f is known to increase > > > with approaching v, increased light-speed means that wavelength (lambda) is > > > invariant. This is obviously not the case. > > > > Let's see if I can translate that into English: > > It IS in English. Can't you READ? Lambda is GREEK. f* is a mathematical language, not English. But, perhaps I should have used "everyday English" instead of just "English," since you seem to argue with anything that is not expressed in your terminology. > > > You're saying that since the speed of light is equal to the frequency of > > the light times its wavelength, and the frequency is known to increase > > for an object that is approaching at high velocity, increased light-speed > > (????) means that the wavelength is must always be the same. And you > > believe "that is obviously not the case." > > > > The problem, as I see it, is your inexplicable BELIEF that the wavelength > > cannot remain the same if the frequency changes. > > The problem as I see it is your inexplicable false belief that the wavelength > does NOT change. So, we have defined a point of disagreement. Does the wavelength change when the frequency changes or doesn't it? Obviously it doesn't change, since that would make no sense. It is just PERCEPTION, NOT REALIty. > > > You seem to accept that the frequency will increase when you approach a > > source of light, but for some inexplicable reason you seem to think that > > means the wavelength cannot remain the same. > > It's not "inexplicable" as I gave you a detailed proof that the result > of invariant wavelength leads to outrageous asininity. > > > Obviously, that is NOT true. The frequency will change because MORE LIGHT > > WAVES are reaching you in a given amount of time. > > Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > > > Just look at light as if it were a picket fence ... [more bull plop deleted > > that was delivered from ignorance] > > .... > > Why would you think the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency > > changes? > > Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > > > Light is like the picket fence. > > No, it's not. You have foisted a false analogy in hopes of remaining in > ignorance of reality. Making false claims and personal attacks doesn't help your cause. > > > It doesn't really change. Is it PERCEIVED and MEASURED to be different when > > an observer is moving. > > Doubletalk! What do you think the difference between "perceived" and > "measured" is? "Perceived" is accomplished by MEASUREMENT. Good grief! I expressed perceived and measured to be the same, and you somehow seem to argue that I'm saying they are different. We're not talking the same language. > > > > Logical argument: A blue light source right beside an observer. It has a > > > wavelength of 400 nm. A red light source with wavelength 650 nm is > > > approaching the observer. The red light will be blue-shifted by the > > > relative motion, to blue light for large enough v. So now the observer > > > sees two blue lights that have widely different wavelengths, one with 400 > > > nm and the other with 650 nm. This is totally asinine, so the only way > > > out of this asininity is for both light beams to have 400 nm wavelength. > > > Hence f increases and lambda decreases, resulting in maintaining a light- > > > speed of c. > > > > Actually, it is perfectly logical. The railroad example explains that if > > you are traveling toward the source of light, it will APPEAR blue-shifted > > because the FREQUENCY will increase, which makes the WAVELENGTH APPEAR > > shorter. > > So you believe that your eyes are fooled? Do you also believe diffraction > gratings are fooled? > > > [More disingenuous bull plop deleted] > > > It appears your argument is based upon your BELIEF that light is always c, > > therefore it CANNOT APPEAR to be something other than c. > > It appears that your argument is based on your BELIEF that spectrometers > are fooled when they MEASURE the wavelength of Doppler-shifted light. > Spectrometers do NOT measure frequency. Didn't you get the memo? Spectrometers ARE fooled when they measure the wavelength of Doppler-shifted light. They measure it "redder" or "bluer" than it really is. No one said anything about spectrometers measuring frequency. > > > > > That is what I say, and that is what Einstein said. > > > > > > You misunderstood what Einstein said. > > > > > > > But, it is NOT what the mathematician-physicists say. They say light is c > > > > for "all observers." > > > > > > Which is EXACTLY what Einstein showed in his proof. > > > > Nonsense. Einstein argued just the opposite. > > You are fatally mistaken. It comes from being blind-sided from your > false belief system. I have no "belief system," false or otherwise. I'm just trying to figure out why mathematicians believe things which COUNTLESS EXPERIMENTS have proven to be totally false. At first I thought it was just something I noticed, and that I was most likely wrong in some way. But then I found DOZENS OF BOOKS which say it is a hundred-year-old problem. > > > > > The experiment they say supports c being the same for ALL observers are > > > > experiments where people in labs have pions or an "ultrarelativistic > > > > electron bunch" emit light and the scientists measure the speed of that > > > > light. It travels at c, not at c + v, so the mathematicians argue that > > > > means that ALL observers will measure light traveling at c. No, it > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > > > > It means what Einstein said, “light is always propagated in empty space > > > > with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > > > > the EMITTING body.” > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > And the emitting body was moving in those cases. In addition, the LLR > > > experiments and communication with space probes confirm that light from > > > moving sources travel at c. Denial of reality is a disease. > > > > Yes, that is MY POINT. The EMITTING BODY was moving in those cases. So, > > the light will be measured to travel at c. > > Not in the frame of the receiver, according to your false belief system. > > > That is what Einstein said and I have been saying. > > Don't kid yourself, bub. You are NOT in agreement with Einstein. Time will tell. > > > But THERE IS NO MOVING OBSERVER in those experiments OTHER THAN THE EMITTER. > > Spacecraft are moving wrt the earth, at up to 50 km/sec. They represent > a moving receiver AND a moving emitter. So what? The experiments that mathematicians uses to argue their beliefs are LAB experiments by T. Alväger, F. J. M. Farley, J. Kjellman, L. Wallin, Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Physics Letters (October 1, 1964) AND E. B. Aleksandrov, P. A. Aleksandrov, V. S. Zapasskii, V. N. Korchuganov, and A. I. Stirin, Measuring Speed of the Light Emitted by an Ultrarelativistic Source, JETP Letters (2011). > > > So, when mathematician-physicists say that the speed of light will be the > > same for ALL OBSERVERS, they have NO evidence to support that. > > > > Ed > > Au contraire, cochon menteur. Only those blinded by their own false belief > system deny the pervasive evidence. Yes, that seems to be your problem exactly. I am looking at the evidence, YOU ARE NOT. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1935ca70-46ec-42be-844c-2a2e3dcc887f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422985 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:52:30 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:11:58 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:29:01 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > That "proves" no such thing. Since c = f*lambda, and f is known to > > > > increase with approaching v, increased light-speed means that > > > > wavelength (lambda) is invariant. This is obviously not the case. > > > > > > Let's see if I can translate that into English: > > > > It IS in English. Can't you READ? > > Lambda is GREEK. f* is a mathematical language, not English. Words in ANY language are just symbols for ideas. If you don't understand perfectly reasonable symbols that have English meanings, you don't belong here. > But, perhaps I should have used "everyday English" instead of just > "English," since you seem to argue with anything that is not expressed > in your terminology. Just like you're doing now. > > > You're saying that since the speed of light is equal to the frequency of > > > the light times its wavelength, and the frequency is known to increase > > > for an object that is approaching at high velocity, increased light-speed > > > (????) means that the wavelength is must always be the same. And you > > > believe "that is obviously not the case." > > > > > > The problem, as I see it, is your inexplicable BELIEF that the wavelength > > > cannot remain the same if the frequency changes. > > > > The problem as I see it is your inexplicable false belief that the > > wavelength does NOT change. > > So, we have defined a point of disagreement. Does the wavelength change > when the frequency changes or doesn't it? Obviously it doesn't change, Obviously, you are dead wrong. > since that would make no sense. I just proved that invariant wavelength makes no sense. > It is just PERCEPTION, NOT REALIty. Perceived by instruments sensitive to wavelength. Your assertion is bogus. > > > You seem to accept that the frequency will increase when you approach a > > > source of light, but for some inexplicable reason you seem to think that > > > means the wavelength cannot remain the same. > > > > It's not "inexplicable" as I gave you a detailed proof that the result > > of invariant wavelength leads to outrageous asininity. And it still does. > > > Obviously, that is NOT true. The frequency will change because MORE LIGHT > > > WAVES are reaching you in a given amount of time. > > > > Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > > > > > Just look at light as if it were a picket fence ... [more bull plop > > > deleted that was delivered from ignorance] > > > .... > > > Why would you think the wavelength cannot remain the same if the frequency > > > changes? > > > > Do you ALWAYS shoot off your mouth before you read the proof? > > > > > Light is like the picket fence. > > > > No, it's not. You have foisted a false analogy in hopes of remaining in > > ignorance of reality. > > Making false claims and personal attacks doesn't help your cause. Making false assertions doesn't help yours, either. And the messenger must expect personal attacks when he delivers a message that he himself has garbled. > > > It doesn't really change. Is it PERCEIVED and MEASURED to be different > > > when an observer is moving. > > > > Doubletalk! What do you think the difference between "perceived" and > > "measured" is? "Perceived" is accomplished by MEASUREMENT. Good grief! > > I expressed perceived and measured to be the same, and you somehow seem to > argue that I'm saying they are different. Now you are lying. You imply that perceived and measured aren't the same and now you claim they are. I think you're having a brain malfunction. > We're not talking the same language. You're not even talking Greek. > > > > Logical argument: A blue light source right beside an observer. > > > > It has a wavelength of 400 nm. A red light source with wavelength > > > > 650 nm is approaching the observer. The red light will be blue- > > > > shifted by the relative motion, to blue light for large enough v. > > > > So now the observer sees two blue lights that have widely > > > > different wavelengths, one with 400 nm and the other with 650 nm. > > > > This is totally asinine, so the only way out of this asininity > > > > is for both light beams to have 400 nm wavelength. Hence f > > > > increases and lambda decreases, resulting in maintaining a light- > > > > speed of c. > > > > > > Actually, it is perfectly logical. The railroad example explains that if > > > you are traveling toward the source of light, it will APPEAR blue-shifted > > > because the FREQUENCY will increase, which makes the WAVELENGTH APPEAR > > > shorter. > > > > So you believe that your eyes are fooled? Do you also believe diffraction > > gratings are fooled? > > > > > [More disingenuous bull plop deleted] > > > > > It appears your argument is based upon your BELIEF that light is always c, > > > therefore it CANNOT APPEAR to be something other than c. > > > > It appears that your argument is based on your BELIEF that spectrometers > > are fooled when they MEASURE the wavelength of Doppler-shifted light. > > Spectrometers do NOT measure frequency. Didn't you get the memo? > > Spectrometers ARE fooled when they measure the wavelength of Doppler-shifted > light. No, they aren't. It is YOU who are trying to fool yourself into believing asinine nonsense. > They measure it "redder" or "bluer" than it really is. No one said anything > about spectrometers measuring frequency. They measure WAVELENGTH, and they show that Dopplered wavelength changes. > I have no "belief system," false or otherwise. :-))))) > I'm just trying to figure out why mathematicians believe things which > COUNTLESS EXPERIMENTS have proven to be totally false. There is proof that you DO have a belief system and it is corrupted. > At first I thought it was just something I noticed, and that I was most > likely wrong in some way. But then I found DOZENS OF BOOKS which say it > is a hundred-year-old problem. The "problem" has been explained for a hundred years, but there is also a psychological problem that some people with false belief systems have. > > > Yes, that is MY POINT. The EMITTING BODY was moving in those cases. So, > > > the light will be measured to travel at c. > > > > Not in the frame of the receiver, according to your false belief system. > > > > > That is what Einstein said and I have been saying. > > > > Don't kid yourself, bub. You are NOT in agreement with Einstein. > > Time will tell. Time has already told. > > > But THERE IS NO MOVING OBSERVER in those experiments OTHER THAN THE > > > EMITTER. > > > > Spacecraft are moving wrt the earth, at up to 50 km/sec. They represent > > a moving receiver AND a moving emitter. > > So what? The experiments that mathematicians uses to argue their beliefs > > are LAB experiments by T. Alväger, F. J. M. Farley, J. Kjellman, L. Wallin, > Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, > Physics Letters (October 1, 1964) AND E. B. Aleksandrov, P. A. Aleksandrov, > V. S. Zapasskii, V. N. Korchuganov, and A. I. Stirin, Measuring Speed of > the Light Emitted by an Ultrarelativistic Source, JETP Letters (2011). So what? Why are you so perplexed by lab sources that MOVE? > > > So, when mathematician-physicists say that the speed of light will be the > > > same for ALL OBSERVERS, they have NO evidence to support that. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Au contraire, cochon menteur. Only those blinded by their own false belief > > system deny the pervasive evidence. > > Yes, that seems to be your problem exactly. I am looking at the evidence, > YOU ARE NOT. > > Ed You are looking through 6" thick lead plate, not glasses. You have NO evidence for your assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web