Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400212 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-30 06:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 16:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 348 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-30 06:18 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-29 11:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-29 13:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 11:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 12:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 11:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-06 13:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-06 15:52 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 16:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 11:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 21:42 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 04:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-12 02:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 09:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 16:56 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-13 06:47 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 14:19 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-12-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 01:57 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-13 06:53 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 22:42 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 19:28 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-16 21:38 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 22:02 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:08 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 17:47 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 03:03 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-30 08:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:46 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 17:05 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 08:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:05 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 09:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:59 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 10:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:22 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 15:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 17:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 00:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 22:36 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 23:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 01:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 04:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 14:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 23:48 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 15:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 10:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 10:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:15 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 13:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 23:04 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> - 2016-12-13 23:49 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 21:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 17:54 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 10:52 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 02:08 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 06:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:42 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 20:58 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 11:37 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 09:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 20:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 20:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 01:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 04:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-15 09:14 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 07:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-15 10:46 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 08:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 15:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 16:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 18:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 23:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 03:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:21 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-18 10:00 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:43 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 12:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 23:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 23:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 05:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 08:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 09:12 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 09:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 09:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 12:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-19 12:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-20 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 16:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 12:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 13:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 15:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 17:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-19 18:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-20 10:16 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 08:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 09:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 08:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-21 10:17 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-21 01:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-22 08:18 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-18 21:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 03:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 05:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 07:10 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 11:38 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 12:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 12:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 21:39 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 01:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 05:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 20:53 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 10:31 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 11:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 11:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 17:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 22:05 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 22:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 23:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 23:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 05:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 06:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 07:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 10:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-21 09:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 15:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 16:57 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 18:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 18:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 20:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-21 20:36 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 01:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 02:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 02:55 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 06:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 06:30 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 12:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 13:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:45 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 14:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 16:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 01:16 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-23 07:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 13:14 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-22 13:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 00:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 13:49 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-20 17:51 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 21:27 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 21:37 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 11:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-17 20:03 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:46 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 14:00 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 14:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-14 17:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 11:35 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-06 18:11 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 19:58 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 14:45 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-09 09:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-06 18:20 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-07 20:00 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-07 10:39 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 07:42 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-10 00:31 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Estrella Batey <yeaetl@sryeaet.org> - 2016-12-09 23:42 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 21:01 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 14:43 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 22:31 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-14 05:13 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:06 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:20 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 12:12 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 18:29 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:20 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-07 05:18 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-08 08:05 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 09:51 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-09 09:25 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 14:03 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-10 20:59 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-10 12:44 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 08:57 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 05:50 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 23:32 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 04:51 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-12 15:15 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 08:29 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 21:00 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 07:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 20:24 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-14 12:38 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-15 15:51 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 10:25 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:33 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 10:47 -0800
Re: Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:52 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:56 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-16 13:47 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 09:13 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-16 23:00 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 11:59 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> - 2016-12-14 18:07 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-11 20:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 05:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 07:24 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 08:34 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 09:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-12 12:04 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 14:05 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-13 00:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-13 07:02 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 22:24 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-13 01:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-12 08:07 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 08:56 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-09 09:44 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 10:33 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-09 11:15 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 11:28 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 11:32 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-10 12:03 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 13:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-10 14:54 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-10 19:22 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-11 16:01 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-10 16:25 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-11 00:35 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 01:09 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 11:35 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 09:54 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:17 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 16:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:21 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 18:45 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-18 10:05 -0600
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-19 08:49 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-18 16:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 22:48 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:19 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-15 11:16 -0800
Cretin Jay Mosley perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 11:21 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 18:52 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-10 09:45 +0100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-10 02:07 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 12:13 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 22:17 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:42 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 12:41 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:40 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 16:02 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 11:06 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-23 08:24 +1100
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh furthermore12345@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 15:26 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh furthermore12345@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 15:47 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh Darleen Sloop <aolenD@nedfdealln.org> - 2016-12-21 23:52 +0000
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 16:23 -0800
Re: Why the Sagnac Effect destroys Einstein and supports BaTh numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 16:35 -0800
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 14:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f496ec98-57d5-4217-8fe3-ba6a18c6ddc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400993 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> On 07/12/16 13:11, Dono, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> >>
> >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v
> >> relative to its source?
> >
> > It doesn't "decide", cretin. There is no "decision" to be made.
> > Decision implies choice. Light ALWAYS moves at "c" wrt the source.
> > You were born a cretin, you are a cretin, your only consolation is
> > that you will die a cretin.
>
> Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the
> idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror
> and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v.
No, that's incorrect. With respect to the lab the light moves at c,
with respect to the rotating platform signal source/receiver the
speed of light is not c and its exact value at specific point
_as measured by that source at a distance_ depends on the choice of
coordinates (i.e., it's a number which is man-made in that sense).
On the rotating platform there are no "obvious" coordinates, one
is simply the inertial ("lab") _rotating_, the other is the momentarily
co-moving inertial integrated over the platform. Both are artificial in
the sense that they do not correspond to the "natural" notion of
simultaneity at a distance (aka. "slow clock transport") experienced by
the signal source (and _that_ natural notion of simultaneity _cannot_ be
extended unambiguously over the entire length of the signal path).
In the "lab rotating" coordinates the light is measured at c+v and
c-v, in the momentarily co-moving inertial the light speed varies
continuously along the track, I forget the exact formula, we went
through all this in full detail in the late 1990s here.
The actual SR model for all this is that light always moves at speed c
locally but the line of simultaneity does not form a closed loop
along the signal trajectory, thus creating an inherent time discrepancy.
In SR this discrepancy _is_ the Sagnac effect.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 09:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2cme5$hh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401061 |
On 08/12/16 09:47, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
>> Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the
>> idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror
>> and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v.
>
> No, that's incorrect. With respect to the lab the light moves at c,
> with respect to the rotating platform signal source/receiver the
> speed of light is not c and its exact value at specific point
> _as measured by that source at a distance_ depends on the choice of
> coordinates (i.e., it's a number which is man-made in that sense).
>
> On the rotating platform there are no "obvious" coordinates, one
> is simply the inertial ("lab") _rotating_, the other is the momentarily
> co-moving inertial integrated over the platform. Both are artificial in
> the sense that they do not correspond to the "natural" notion of
> simultaneity at a distance (aka. "slow clock transport") experienced by
> the signal source (and _that_ natural notion of simultaneity _cannot_ be
> extended unambiguously over the entire length of the signal path).
>
> In the "lab rotating" coordinates the light is measured at c+v and
> c-v, in the momentarily co-moving inertial the light speed varies
> continuously along the track, I forget the exact formula, we went
> through all this in full detail in the late 1990s here.
>
> The actual SR model for all this is that light always moves at speed c
> locally but the line of simultaneity does not form a closed loop
> along the signal trajectory, thus creating an inherent time discrepancy.
> In SR this discrepancy _is_ the Sagnac effect.
What a load of crap...terrible crap!!!
When the beams leave the source, they don't know they are going around
in a circle. The source is effectively inertial. They both move at c
relative to the source in opposite directions.
The Einsteinian explanation of Sagnac regards light as a simple
oscillator that moves at different speeds from the source.
BaTh has a very simple explanation. Light moves at c relative to the
source and the path lengths are different. Since wavelength is absolute
and frame independent, the phases at the receiver vary with path length.
BaTh produces the correct equation for fringe displacement as does
Einstein's aether theory, 4aw/Lc. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html
> Jan
>
--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a077fc8b-cbef-4d5d-a791-bbdbb036fcae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401132 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 2:22:06 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> On 08/12/16 09:47, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:58:17 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
>
> >> Poor fool! Einstein's explanation of the Sagnac Effect is based on the
> >> idea that light from the source splits into two beams at the 45 mirror
> >> and one half leaves that mirror at c+v and the other at c-v.
> >
> > No, that's incorrect. With respect to the lab the light moves at c,
> > with respect to the rotating platform signal source/receiver the
> > speed of light is not c and its exact value at specific point
> > _as measured by that source at a distance_ depends on the choice of
> > coordinates (i.e., it's a number which is man-made in that sense).
> >
> > On the rotating platform there are no "obvious" coordinates, one
> > is simply the inertial ("lab") _rotating_, the other is the momentarily
> > co-moving inertial integrated over the platform. Both are artificial in
> > the sense that they do not correspond to the "natural" notion of
> > simultaneity at a distance (aka. "slow clock transport") experienced by
> > the signal source (and _that_ natural notion of simultaneity _cannot_ be
> > extended unambiguously over the entire length of the signal path).
> >
> > In the "lab rotating" coordinates the light is measured at c+v and
> > c-v, in the momentarily co-moving inertial the light speed varies
> > continuously along the track, I forget the exact formula, we went
> > through all this in full detail in the late 1990s here.
> >
> > The actual SR model for all this is that light always moves at speed c
> > locally but the line of simultaneity does not form a closed loop
> > along the signal trajectory, thus creating an inherent time discrepancy.
> > In SR this discrepancy _is_ the Sagnac effect.
>
> What a load of crap...terrible crap!!!
This is how SR models this. If you say it's "crap", it means you don't
know how SR models this.
> When the beams leave the source, they don't know they are going around
> in a circle.
Agreed (although you could have said it more precisely).
> The source is effectively inertial.
Well, here you have to be precise again. By that token, everything in the
universe is at rest (do consult Zenon). Perhaps you are right, it's impossible
to say without the details of what you mean.
> They both move at c
> relative to the source in opposite directions.
They move at c locally (i.e. past each signal path point). How fast they
move with respect to the platform observer depends on how you set up your
speed-measurement procedure:
1. If you use the most obvious way to synchronise events along the path,
you'll discover that:
(a) the speed of light is c constantly,
(b) but the time coordinate does not match after completing one
circuit (no matter how slow your synchronising clock has been moving),
2. if you use the momentarily co-moving inertial coordinates, the speed
of light you measure varies smoothly back and forth (I forget the exact
formula),
3. if you use the lab coordinates set rotating, the sppeds are c-v and c+v.
> The Einsteinian explanation of Sagnac regards light as a simple
> oscillator that moves at different speeds from the source.
> BaTh has a very simple explanation.
Does it match the results from QFD? Can you derive massive weak bosons
from BaTh? You have no theory unless you can do at least as good as
existing theories.
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5538cba8-bbab-431d-a8d0-25550e7f02eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400982 |
HGW wrote: I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? Bulk Elastic Modulus & Wave speed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 20:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o28j2h$16fg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400987 |
On 07/12/16 13:20, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > HGW wrote: > > I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light > decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? > > Bulk Elastic Modulus & Wave speed ...light needs no medium. It carries is own...and joins up with others. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o28ld5$bmc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #400982 |
On 07.12.2016 01:35, HGW wrote: > On 06/12/16 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >> >> And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html > > I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light > decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? > Can it read the future and know instantly if it is going straight ahead > or around a circle?...and if you want to try criticizing BaTh, you > should learn what it is all about first and not make up some silly > theory of your own. > SR predicts that the phase difference is Δφ=8πAω/λc. Emission/ballistic theory predicts Δφ=0. Which of the predictions is in accordance with experimental evidence? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 07:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2ecd1$9ho$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400982 |
On 12/6/2016 6:35 PM, HGW wrote: > On 06/12/16 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >> >> And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html > > I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light > decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? It always moves at c relative to the source. It always moves at c relative to the observer. The mistake you make is thinking that if the observer is moving relative to the source at speed v, and the light is moving at c relative to the observer, then it MUST be moving at c-v or c+v relative to the source. That is incorrect. The value of c-v or c+v is a *closing* speed between the source at the light in the observer's frame. It is NOT a relative speed between the light and the source. Speed relative to the source must be measured in a frame in which the source is at rest, and the observer's frame doesn't satisfy that. You have the same confusion between closing speed and relative speed that Seto has, and as you know, Seto knows nothing about relativity. Neither do you, apparently. > Can it read the future and know instantly if it is going straight ahead > or around a circle?...and if you want to try criticizing BaTh, you > should learn what it is all about first and not make up some silly > theory of your own. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 00:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <740668201.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #401178 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > […] Speed relative to the source must be measured in a > frame in which the source is at rest, […] I beg your pardon? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Estrella Batey <yeaetl@sryeaet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2ffgo$49m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401228 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> […] Speed relative to the source must be measured in a frame in which >> the source is at rest, […] > > I beg your pardon? You just gave the proof that you are not even a half-engineer. You must be a half of something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 21:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2gjq1$1ckt$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401178 |
On 10/12/16 00:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/6/2016 6:35 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 06/12/16 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >>> >>> And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html >> >> I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light >> decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? > > It always moves at c relative to the source. > It always moves at c relative to the observer. > The mistake you make is thinking that if the observer is moving relative > to the source at speed v, and the light is moving at c relative to the > observer, then it MUST be moving at c-v or c+v relative to the source. > That is incorrect. > The value of c-v or c+v is a *closing* speed between the source at the > light in the observer's frame. It is NOT a relative speed between the > light and the source. Speed relative to the source must be measured in a > frame in which the source is at rest, and the observer's frame doesn't > satisfy that. Bodkin, you have been reading too much LET...and you insist there is no aether...so why do you keep referring to it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 14:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o2n24o$13gk$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401270 |
On 12/10/2016 4:01 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 10/12/16 00:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/6/2016 6:35 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 06/12/16 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >>>> >>>> And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html >>> >>> I have read them...and I'm still laughing...How does Einstein's light >>> decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its source? >> >> It always moves at c relative to the source. >> It always moves at c relative to the observer. >> The mistake you make is thinking that if the observer is moving relative >> to the source at speed v, and the light is moving at c relative to the >> observer, then it MUST be moving at c-v or c+v relative to the source. >> That is incorrect. >> The value of c-v or c+v is a *closing* speed between the source at the >> light in the observer's frame. It is NOT a relative speed between the >> light and the source. Speed relative to the source must be measured in a >> frame in which the source is at rest, and the observer's frame doesn't >> satisfy that. > > Bodkin, you have been reading too much LET...and you insist there is no > aether...so why do you keep referring to it? > > LET does not say any of things said above. But I appreciate you trying to create a diversion by throwing sparkly things in the air before turning and running. Very pretty. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 22:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <YYWdnXq3g7YR5NLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #401178 |
On 12/9/16 12/9/16 7:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > [light] always moves at c relative to the source. > [light] always moves at c relative to the observer. Only when source/observer are at rest in an inertial frame -- the reference is really the inertial frame, and not the source/observer -- it is impossible to measure speed relative to a pointlike object like a source or observer, it ALWAYS requires a coordinate system. > [... more, on which I have no comment] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 05:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2pdof$uba$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401581 |
On 13/12/16 15:31, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/9/16 12/9/16 7:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> [light] always moves at c relative to the source. >> [light] always moves at c relative to the observer. > > Only when source/observer are at rest in an inertial frame -- the > reference is really the inertial frame, and not the source/observer -- > it is impossible to measure speed relative to a pointlike object like a > source or observer, it ALWAYS requires a coordinate system. Crap! Terrible CRAP! OWLS can always be measured under any circumstance, using two clocks that are synched together then moved apart. Their synchronization can be checked at any time by sending light signals between them USING SOURCES AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS. >> [... more, on which I have no comment] > > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2pkc6$19r9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401638 |
HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Only when source/observer are at rest in an inertial frame -- the >> reference is really the inertial frame, and not the source/observer -- >> it is impossible to measure speed relative to a pointlike object like a >> source or observer, it ALWAYS requires a coordinate system. > > Crap! Terrible CRAP! OWLS can always be measured under any circumstance, No is not, and you cant do that. Since would DEMAND a speed much higher than the speed of light. Once you admit that speed is limited, you HAVE to have a speed much larger than that, making you able to establish a certain value for the former one. > using two clocks that are synched together then moved apart. Their > synchronization can be checked at any time by sending light signals > between them USING SOURCES AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS. Once you moved one of them a micrometer apart, they are not in synch anymore. What you need is to make use of my Divergent Matter theory. But its hard to accomplish a proper setup. (but not impossible)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2pone$b7h$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401660 |
On 13.12.2016 21:06, Zaida Orvis wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 12:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3fudnYqLGvUQFszFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #401638 |
On 12/13/16 12/13/16 - 12:13 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 13/12/16 15:31, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/9/16 12/9/16 7:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> [light] always moves at c relative to the source. [light] always moves at >>> c relative to the observer. >> >> Only when source/observer are at rest in an inertial frame -- the reference >> is really the inertial frame, and not the source/observer -- it is >> impossible to measure speed relative to a pointlike object like a source or >> observer, it ALWAYS requires a coordinate system. > > Crap! Terrible CRAP! OWLS can always be measured under any circumstance, > using two clocks that are synched together then moved apart. [...] You say "Crap! Terrible CRAP!" and then agree with me -- you describe how to CONSTRUCT COORDINATES relative to which OWLS can be measured (you omitted measuring the distance between the two clocks). Note in particular that your measurement of OWLS is NOT relative to some pointlike object, it uses TWO CLOCKS, and is clearly relative to the inertial frame in which they are at rest. If they are not at rest in some inertial frame, then the result of their OWLS measurement will in general vary, and none of their measurements need be equal to c (in vacuum).... You also did not address the error introduced by moving the clocks.... Elsewhere you said: > How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v relative to its > source? Can it read the future and know instantly if it is going straight > ahead or around a circle? This is just proof that you do not understand relativity, and instead insist on indulging in your personal fantasies. (Fantasies which are self-inconsistent and do not agree with reality, but you carefully keep yourself too ignorant to recognize that.) When emitted by a source into vacuum, light ALWAYS moves with speed c relative to the inertial frame that is instantaneously co-moving with the source at the instant of emission. This makes it clear that no subsequent motion (or change of motion) of the source can affect the light that has been emitted. Why such inertial frames are important is a fascinating subject. To understand it, you'll have to learn basic differential geometry and how it relates to modern physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odilia Blatt <ttaliol@itrh3gdit.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2s31g$14n2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401815 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > When emitted by a source into vacuum, light ALWAYS moves with speed c > relative to the inertial frame that is instantaneously co-moving with > the source at the instant of emission. This makes it clear that no > subsequent motion (or change of motion) of the source can affect the > light that has been emitted. You go too far here. That's not a proof for a certain bounded speed of light, but merely a restricted functionality of the detector and the used instruments. Those are CALIBRATED and aimed to work UNDER, and with the Speed of Light as the UPPER limit. Hopefully somebody just learned something today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 06:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2s62l$1atr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401815 |
On 15/12/16 05:12, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/13/16 12/13/16 - 12:13 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> [light] always moves at c relative to the source. [light] always >>>> moves at >>>> c relative to the observer. >>> >>> Only when source/observer are at rest in an inertial frame -- the >>> reference >>> is really the inertial frame, and not the source/observer -- it is >>> impossible to measure speed relative to a pointlike object like a >>> source or >>> observer, it ALWAYS requires a coordinate system. >> >> Crap! Terrible CRAP! OWLS can always be measured under any circumstance, >> using two clocks that are synched together then moved apart. [...] > > You say "Crap! Terrible CRAP!" and then agree with me -- you describe > how to > CONSTRUCT COORDINATES relative to which OWLS can be measured (you omitted > measuring the distance between the two clocks). One certainly does not 'measure' that distance with light. One will calibrate the 'rod' that separates the clocks by comparing it with a predetermined standard ROD...and light can be used in that process...but the source must be at rest with the two. In general, lengths can only be defined by objects and it is true that according to BaTh, the wavelength of light does define an absolute distance. Therefore calibrating rods by counting wavelengths is a legitimate method...but using light speed is not...for the simple reason that it is not necessarily constant. Note in particular that > your > measurement of OWLS is NOT relative to some pointlike object, it uses TWO > CLOCKS, and is clearly relative to the inertial frame in which they are > at rest. > > If they are not at rest in some inertial frame, then the > result of their OWLS measurement will in general vary, and > none of their measurements need be equal to c (in vacuum).... Correct!!! You have finally gotten it! The OW speed of light is not always c. Light speed is source dependent and Einstein's second postulate is invalid! Congratulations Tom! > You also did not address the error introduced by moving the clocks.... What error? Good clocks are not affected by movement and nor is the rigid rod that holds them apart. Their synchronization can always be checked at any time with light signals from a central source, anyway. > Elsewhere you said: >> How does Einstein's light decide whether to move at c or c+v relative >> to its >> source? Can it read the future and know instantly if it is going straight >> ahead or around a circle? > > This is just proof that you do not understand relativity, and instead > insist on indulging in your personal fantasies. (Fantasies which are > self-inconsistent and do not agree with reality, but you carefully keep > yourself too ignorant to recognize that.) Tom, not only do I fully understand relativity, I also understand why Einstein's version is pure nonsense from start to finish...because it is based on a fallacy. I'm surprised that a man or your ability has not been able to do the same. > When emitted by a source into vacuum, light ALWAYS moves with speed c > relative to the inertial frame that is instantaneously co-moving with > the source at the instant of emission. This makes it clear that no > subsequent motion (or change of motion) of the source can affect the > light that has been emitted. Let's just say, "light initially moves at c relative to it source". Do you know why that happens? Of course you don't! ...but BaTh has a good explanation. > Why such inertial frames are important is a fascinating subject. > To understand it, you'll have to learn basic differential geometry > and how it relates to modern physics. Their importance is not specifically limited to Einstein's silly theory or modern physics in general. Even Galileo knew all about it. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 05:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <431d2595-538f-4046-9477-5835d1325094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400849 |
Paul B Anderson wrote... >>On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html >And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf This is incorrect. You have light at c+v or c-v in the lab frame for a classical explanation. It should be c is variable in the lab frame for classical. In case you don't understand why, here's a simple explanation. You are on a rotating carousel platform in a lab.You throw a ball from the carousel. It travels at speed v in the lab. Notice that the ball cannot therefore be travelling at a constant speed relative to *you*. Because you are rotating in the lab, as the ball is travelling at a constant speed in the lab. And as we know from many experiments like MMX. Light always travels at c relative to its source. In a classical model. Whether or not the source is rotating. Therefore your assumption in your above PDF link is erroneous as you assume that in a classical model light can travel at variable speeds relative to its source. Classical never claims this nor is this assumption you make backed up by observation. If you redo your calculations in your paper correctly, with light travelling at a constant speed relative to the rotating source in Sagnac. You will find a classical model WILL give a fringe shift. As this short simulation below shows. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 08:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o29tir$1ljo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401002 |
On 08/12/16 00:18, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Paul B Anderson wrote... >>> On 29.11.2016 20:18, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Read all about it here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html > >> And when you are through laughing, you can read these: >> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > > This is incorrect. You have light at c+v or c-v in the lab frame > for a classical explanation. It should be c is variable in the lab > frame for classical. > Therefore your assumption in your above PDF link is erroneous > as you assume that in a classical model light can travel at variable > speeds relative to its source. Classical never claims this nor is this > assumption you make backed up by observation. > If you redo your calculations in your paper correctly, with light > travelling at a constant speed relative to the rotating source in Sagnac. > You will find a classical model WILL give a fringe shift. As this short > simulation below shows. > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7X8wlbXFaMo This is nonsense too. Einstein's SR is no different from LET. Einstein clearly assumed the existence of an eather in order to unify all light speeds from differently moving sources. The error Paul and classical physicists make is to assume that light behaves like a simple oscillator. It does not. In the frame of light (or a radio signal), there is no oscillation; just a fixed spatial distribution of energy that moves at c relative to its source and at a particular speed, c+v, relative to each observer. On interception, the frequency used to create the spatial pattern is reproduced in the receiver. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer, the two beams have different path lengths. According to BaTh, wavelength is absolute and the phase difference when the beams reunite follows the same equation as predicted by classical theory...as explained quite simply and clearly right here: http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html In the absence of an 'aether', there is no reason why the beams should move at c+v and c-v relative to their common source, as claimed by PA and Einstein. Although Sagnac does not rule out the existence of classical aether, it certainly refutes Einstein's half baked plagiarized version. The fact that wavelength is absolute also makes a mockery of all those rotating mirror experiments that are claimed to refute BaTh. Interferometry in general is not sensitive to light speeds at all, only path lengths. Even if one path moved at ten times the speed of the other there would be no fringe displacement. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web