Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb29512a-5296-4c16-9d69-254973cc58ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393726 |
W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 14:52:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen > When an arbitrary observer measures the speed of light > then the only true reference is himself (or the inertial > frame in which he instantly is at rest). There is no > way he can measure the speed of light relative to anything > else than himself (his instruments). You are stupid. > And as you well know, experimental evidence show that > the speed of light in vacuum always is measured to be c, > regardless of the speed of the source. There is no such evidence, but rather quite opposite: for example in the flybys precise measurements a signal speed is just c +/- v, thus the anomalies of order: several mm/s, for speed km/s, ie. anomaly = dv/v =~ 1/milion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns8vh6$i6c$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #393726 |
Użytkownik "Paul B. Andersen" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ns8h9t$cdt$1@dont-email.me... |When an arbitrary observer measures the speed of light |then the only true reference is himself (or the inertial |frame in which he instantly is at rest). There is no |way he can measure the speed of light relative to anything |else than himself (his instruments). And it's absolutely impossible that Copernicus noticed the Earth's move while standing on Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ed42a85-935c-4007-85a8-f1547aaef882@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393580 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 6:04:00 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 24/09/16 17:19, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a > > > pulse..then repeat that procedure. > > > > That doesn't help. If the interval is constant in the frame of the > > intermittently accelerating source, then it is not constant in the frame > > of an inertial observer. > > > > > > > > Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the > > > same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... > > > > Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is > > also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, > > there's nothing it needs to do, or know. > > There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating > light source and some photons. How do you know that if there are no observers? :-)) > If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly > what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... > then I can only assume you don't have one. How do you know it moves at c wrt the source if there are no observers? Stupid Ralphie-boy, light moves at c wrt the OBSERVER. If the observer is stationary wrt the source, then light moves at c wrt the source. Don't be such a stupid reality-denier. And stop posting nonsense baloney under my name. It just proves that you are not only stupid, but dishonest as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns85jf$dd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393596 |
On 25/09/16 00:39, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 6:04:00 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. > wrote: >>>> Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move >>>> at the same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently >>>> what you believe... >>> >>> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one >>> observer is also moving at the speed of light relative to all >>> other observers, there's nothing it needs to do, or know. >> >> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating >> light source and some photons. > > How do you know that if there are no observers? :-)) > >> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do >> exactly what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to >> its source.... then I can only assume you don't have one. > > How do you know it moves at c wrt the source if there are no > observers? Einstein said so. > Stupid Doctor, light moves at c wrt the OBSERVER. If the observer is > stationary wrt the source, then light moves at c wrt the source. ...but this observer is not stationary wrt the source. > Don't be such a stupid reality-denier. > > And Doctor, stop reposting my nonsense baloney under my name. It > just proves how honest you are. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce74c932-a6d4-4000-a9b2-79d09da29581@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393707 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:32:41 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > On 25/09/16 00:39, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 6:04:00 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. > > wrote: > > > > > > There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating > > > light source and some photons. > > > > How do you know that if there are no observers? :-)) (sounds of crickets chirping) > > > If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do > > > exactly what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to > > > its source.... then I can only assume you don't have one. > > > > How do you know it moves at c wrt the source if there are no > > observers? > > Einstein said so. Did he really? Assertion isn't evidence. Anyway, he said it moves at c relative to EVERYONE. You sure like to doctor the Doctor's words, don't you? :-) > > Stupid Doctor, light moves at c wrt the OBSERVER. If the observer is > > stationary wrt the source, then light moves at c wrt the source. > > ...but this observer is not stationary wrt the source. So you admit that the observer is important after you said that there are no observers :-)) You certainly do have an illogical logic circuit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns6evc$1osl$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393580 |
On 9/24/2016 7:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light > source and some photons. > > If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly > what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... > then I can only assume you don't have one. Sorry, but you are not free to ask for reasons in an alternate universe that you made up. In the REAL world, there are sources, light, and observer's reference frames (at least). NOW you can ask for reasons in that real world. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns86a4$1g6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393621 |
On 25/09/16 04:00, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/24/2016 7:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light >> source and some photons. >> >> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly >> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... >> then I can only assume you don't have one. > > Sorry, but you are not free to ask for reasons in an alternate universe > that you made up. In the REAL world, there are sources, light, and > observer's reference frames (at least). NOW you can ask for reasons in > that real world. I think I should remind you that the physical world functioned perfectly well long before any human eyes observed anything. In remote space, a light pulse has only its own source to tell it how fast is must move. There is nothing else in its vicinity that can change that. A light pulse emitted by the same source after a speed change will do the same thing, completely ignorant of the fact that another pulse was fired before it. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52aa3cb3-8920-4aa0-9dec-3fd5c86a9309@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393709 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:44:47 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > I think I should remind you that the physical world functioned perfectly > well long before any human eyes observed anything. Hold that thought ... > In remote space, a light pulse has only its own source to tell it how > fast is must move. There is nothing else in its vicinity that can change > that. A light pulse emitted by the same source after a speed change will > do the same thing, completely ignorant of the fact that another pulse > was fired before it. Assertion isn't evidence, and repeated assertions don't turn non-evidence into evidence. So you have a "source" in remote space. How do you know the emitted light pulse travels at c wrt said source? You can't say that Einstein or anyone else said so. After all, you claimed that the universe got along just fine before anyone observed it. So, contrary to your ill-informed claim, you need an observer to measure the speed of the light pulse. So now the light pulse has something else by which to "set its speed," not just the light source. So your argument that there's nothing else besides the source is illogical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns9hqt$849$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393709 |
On 9/25/2016 4:44 AM, HGW wrote: > On 25/09/16 04:00, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/24/2016 7:04 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light >>> source and some photons. >>> >>> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly >>> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... >>> then I can only assume you don't have one. >> >> Sorry, but you are not free to ask for reasons in an alternate universe >> that you made up. In the REAL world, there are sources, light, and >> observer's reference frames (at least). NOW you can ask for reasons in >> that real world. > > I think I should remind you that the physical world functioned perfectly > well long before any human eyes observed anything. Yes. As I said, what defines the speed is not the observer but the observer's reference frame. Those also existed long before humans. > In remote space, a light pulse has only its own source to tell it how > fast is must move. Bullshit. > There is nothing else in its vicinity that can change > that. Repetitive bullshit. Got anything better? > A light pulse emitted by the same source after a speed change will > do the same thing, completely ignorant of the fact that another pulse > was fired before it. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsblls$1j93$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393783 |
On 26/09/16 08:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/25/2016 4:44 AM, HGW wrote: >> On 25/09/16 04:00, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Sorry, but you are not free to ask for reasons in an alternate universe >>> that you made up. In the REAL world, there are sources, light, and >>> observer's reference frames (at least). NOW you can ask for reasons in >>> that real world. >> >> I think I should remind you that the physical world functioned perfectly >> well long before any human eyes observed anything. > > Yes. As I said, what defines the speed is not the observer but the > observer's reference frame. Those also existed long before humans. > >> In remote space, a light pulse has only its own source to tell it how >> fast is must move. > > Bullshit. Bodkin, this is a relativity NG. We would prefer aetherists like you to keep away. You can only contribute nothing but drivel. True relativity was discovered by Newton so you should try to learn that. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91de856b-dc62-4e7e-94de-671c90fdf275@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393891 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Bodkin, this is a relativity NG. We would prefer aetherists like you to > keep away. You can only contribute nothing but drivel. Ralphie-boy, this is a relativity group. We prefer ballistic bumblers like you to keep away. You can contribute nothing but drivel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsdk3u$pqp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393891 |
On 9/26/2016 12:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 26/09/16 08:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/25/2016 4:44 AM, HGW wrote: >>> In remote space, a light pulse has only its own source to tell it how >>> fast is must move. >> >> Bullshit. > > Bodkin, this is a relativity NG. We would prefer aetherists like you to > keep away. You can only contribute nothing but drivel. > > True relativity was discovered by Newton so you should try to learn that. More bullshit. Response takes less effort than yours to produce it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <506c9028-73c6-4e41-ac45-88431798f5e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393783 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:07:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > observer's reference frame. Those also existed long before humans. You know, poor idiot, get back to your fine tools and toys.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns5tok$5uo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393547 |
On 24.09.2016 01:23, HGW wrote: > On 23/09/16 13:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/09/2016 2:56 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 22/09/16 13:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >>>>> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >>>>> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >>>>> journey through space? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? >>>> >>>> You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using >>>> expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular >>>> intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? >>> >>> HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! VERY FUNNY! >>> >> >> I dare say. >> >> So which is it? > > Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a > pulse..then repeat that procedure. > > Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the > same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe.. It is indeed a weird idea that how Nature works should depend on whether or not a person can explain why it works as it does. :-D > > Bullets certainly don't do it... > > ...or are you admitting that you are just a very ordinary aetherist like > Bodkin? > Ralph, we know you believe that the speed of light in vacuum is source dependent. But physics isn't a matter of belief, it is a matter of experimental evidence. Experimental evidence prove your belief wrong. https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf You can kick and scream and repeat your divine credo over and over, but the that won't make the experimental evidence go away. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns6lqg$3vk$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393591 |
On 24/09/16 23:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 24.09.2016 01:23, HGW wrote: >> On 23/09/16 13:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > > Experimental evidence prove your belief wrong. > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf ......More evidence of alcohol induced dimentia....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns805m$7eo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393640 |
On 24.09.2016 21:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 24/09/16 23:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Ralph, we know you believe that the speed of light >> in vacuum is source dependent. >> >> But physics isn't a matter of belief, >> it is a matter of experimental evidence. >> >> Experimental evidence prove your belief wrong. >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >> You can kick and scream and repeat your divine credo over and over, >> but the that won't make the experimental evidence go away. >> > > ......More evidence of alcohol induced dimentia.... > .. and that's why the experimental evidence can be ignored. Well done, Ralph! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86b630c0-ac50-4167-a6e0-742892af1c66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393287 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 05:43:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > You have an accelerating frame. Tom would explain You that "accelerating frame" is, according to modern physics, self-deny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrvp90$a0c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393284 |
Dne 22/09/2016 v 04:07 HGW napsal(a): > If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular > intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that > the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire > journey through space? > > That would be a problem for BaTh, but not for SR.... -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns0a91$c6c$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393292 |
On 22/09/16 15:13, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 22/09/2016 v 04:07 HGW napsal(a): >> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >> journey through space? >> >> > That would be a problem for BaTh, but not for SR.... No problem for BaTh at all. What happens to bullets fired from an accelerating machine gun in remote space? What would photons not do the same? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns0g0m$g36$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393315 |
On 09/22/2016 12:03 PM, HGW wrote: > On 22/09/16 15:13, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 22/09/2016 v 04:07 HGW napsal(a): >>> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >>> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >>> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >>> journey through space? >>> >>> >> That would be a problem for BaTh, but not for SR.... > > No problem for BaTh at all. > > What happens to bullets fired from an accelerating machine gun in remote > space? > What would photons not do the same? > Photons are not like bullets. They do not care about the gun speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web