Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359958 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:40 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-08 08:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:36 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:48 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:13 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 12:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 19:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 10:06 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:08 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 23:43 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:26 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-12 10:23 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 01:51 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:39 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-14 14:52 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:37 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-13 18:41 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:28 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 17:08 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 03:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 21:42 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:33 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-19 06:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:53 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:14 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 03:42 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-20 12:33 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-19 14:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 09:52 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 12:25 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-17 21:20 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 03:15 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 19:39 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:27 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 03:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-08 19:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 15:45 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:46 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 08:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:44 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 23:36 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 07:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 18:31 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:40 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 21:30 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:16 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-10 07:50 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:43 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 08:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-11 16:27 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-11 22:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 17:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 07:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 19:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 05:29 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 03:32 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 22:53 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 11:16 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 19:55 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 06:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:22 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:15 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 20:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:15 +1000
Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-08 13:02 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:37 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 14:32 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:33 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:10 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:56 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:19 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 06:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:28 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 17:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 02:01 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 11:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:36 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 06:08 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:00 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:04 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:43 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-09 11:23 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 14:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-11 08:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:29 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-13 13:07 -0700
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 20:02 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f12a5eaa-ce1e-484f-b801-0bcde5551df8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361401 |
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 5:17:55 PM UTC-6, HG Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a > > habit." -- Aristotle > > > > And so is stupidity. > > You should know. You were were born with it. I'm not the willfully-ignorant fool that can't explain why blue photons have more energy than red photons, but they both travel at the same speed. This little fact blows Ralphie-boy's sophist bullshit to smithereens, making himself the stupid one. Apparently Ralphie-boy is too stupid to understand that speed in our universe has a limit, and the blue photon/red photon phenomenon blows stupid little Ralphie-boy's specious BaTh bullshit right out of his sodden underpants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 14:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr1set$u84$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #361218 |
On 18.08.2015 22:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:33:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html > > Hahahhhahha! The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand. > I like the light clock one best. Which demonstrates that you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, have read none of the papers in that reference. Which will surprise no one. They contain math, and your mathematical illiteracy is well known. I note with interest that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge like a never performed experiment best. He intensely dislike all performed experiments because most of them falsify the ballistic theory and none of them falsify SR/GR. https://paulba.no/paper/index.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 05:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mnn9tapulj2l0sfmnr7boskms5sg59bf7m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361283 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:22:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 18.08.2015 22:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:33:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html >> >> Hahahhhahha! > >The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand. > >> I like the light clock one best. > >Which demonstrates that you, Henry Wilson DSc., >have read none of the papers in that reference. >Which will surprise no one. >They contain math, and your mathematical illiteracy is well known. > >I note with interest that Henry Wilson DSc. >like a never performed experiment best. >He intensely dislike all performed experiments >because most of them falsify the ballistic theory >and none of them falsify SR/GR. No experiment has falsified BaTh. No experiment has supported SR. End of story.... >https://paulba.no/paper/index.html __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 09:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr40vu$qm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #361314 |
On 19.08.2015 21:55, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > No experiment has falsified BaTh. No experiment has supported SR. > End of story.... It has always puzzled me why anybody voluntarily will make a gigantic fool of himself by claiming something he must know is utter nonsense. :-D https://paulba.no/paper/index.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 19:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ck6btah069293bv88n3n3qreipr5tvqikq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361352 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:52:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 19.08.2015 21:55, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> No experiment has falsified BaTh. No experiment has supported SR. >> End of story.... > >It has always puzzled me why anybody voluntarily will make >a gigantic fool of himself by claiming something he must know >is utter nonsense. :-D > >https://paulba.no/paper/index.html Sorry, i have read a lot of experiments that claim to support Einstein's silly P2 and not one of them would stand up in court of law. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 12:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr49v0$g60$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #361363 |
On 20.08.2015 11:17, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:52:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > >> On 19.08.2015 21:55, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> >>> No experiment has falsified BaTh. No experiment has supported SR. >>> End of story.... >> >> It has always puzzled me why anybody voluntarily will make >> a gigantic fool of himself by claiming something he must know >> is utter nonsense. :-D >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html > > Sorry, i have read a lot of experiments that claim to support Einstein's silly > P2 and not one of them would stand up in court of law. > As I said ... -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqtj7l$f9t$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #361106 |
Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes: >On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:08:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> >wrote: >>Here is some of the vast amount of experimental >>evidence for the invariance of the speed of light: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >I just read the fourth of the above again and the only thng it proved to me >was that dingleberries were just as desperate then as they are now. >Surely, nobody in their right minds could take that paper seriously. >It contains at least 50 very dubious assumptions. Like what, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 08:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <7kn4talsbk67b3p0d903dq2r8pi0a38rqm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361130 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:20:53 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes: > >>On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:08:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> >>wrote: > >>>Here is some of the vast amount of experimental >>>evidence for the invariance of the speed of light: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > >>I just read the fourth of the above again and the only thng it proved to me >>was that dingleberries were just as desperate then as they are now. >>Surely, nobody in their right minds could take that paper seriously. > >>It contains at least 50 very dubious assumptions. > >Like what, Henry? I'm not doing your homework for you Moron-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 03:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqu80d$adn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #361135 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge writes: >On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:20:53 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com >(Michael Moroney) wrote: >>>It contains at least 50 very dubious assumptions. >>Like what, Henry? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you really are a slow learner, aren't you, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, I have told you repeatedly not to edit my quotes, Ralph. I have told you, Ralph, that doing so will only earn you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, replies such as this one, Ralph, where I will use your real name, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, a dozen or two times, Mr. Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm, you do realize how easy cut-and-paste with a mouse makes inserting your name, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, into a post, over and over and over again, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, maybe I should get that mouse with a zillion buttons that Jeff Relf has, Ralph, so I can permanently assign one as "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge", another as "Ralph Rabbidge" and a third as simply "Ralph", Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, I bet you'd really love that, wouldn't you, Mr. Rabbidge. > I'm not doing your homework for you Moron-y Ralph Rabbidge, I cannot even find even one dubious assumption, Ralph, let alone 50, Ralph Malcolm. Mr. Rabbidge, please list just three "dubious assumptions", Ralph, and we can look into them in more detail, Ralph. Ralph, that's what a real DSc. would do, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 19:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <g1v5tahikc4nuem5q67h6g7l2d81of1rhd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #361151 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:15:25 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> I'm not doing your homework for you Moron-y > >Henry Wilson, I cannot even find even one dubious assumption, Henry >let alone 50, Henry Wilson. You wont find a better Irish joke either, Moron-y, when you look in a mirror.. >Dr. Wilson, please list just three >"dubious assumptions", Henry look into them in more detail, >Henry. Henry, that's what a real DSc. would do, Henry George Wilson. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqvf2v$ql6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #361179 |
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge <hw@....> writes:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:15:25 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>(Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not doing your homework for you Moron-y
>>
>>Henry Wilson, I cannot even find even one dubious assumption, Henry
>>let alone 50, Henry Wilson.
>You wont find a better Irish joke either, Moron-y, when you look in a mirror..
>>Dr. Wilson, please list just three
>>"dubious assumptions", Henry look into them in more detail,
>>Henry. Henry, that's what a real DSc. would do, Henry George Wilson.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, now I have my answer, Ralph. Mr. Rabbidge, you
really aren't simply stupid, you're actually insane by Mr. Einstein's
definition ("insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results"), Ralphy. Or you're just simply insane,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralphy Rabbidge, you do realize that every time
you do this, Ralph, you will be punished for it, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralphy, why do you have such a hangup over your name, which is Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge, Ralph? Ralphy, is it because you don't want your
neighbors, who know your name is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, to know what you
are doing online from your darkened house with the curtains drawn, that
you never leave, Ralph?
And Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why are you making fun of the Irish, Ralph?
You do realize that "Rabbidge" is a fine Irish name, don't you, Ralphy?
Are you racist, Ralph? Plus, Ralph, you come from a country where just
about all your ancestors were pickpockets, prostitutes and drunks, Ralph.
Admittedly, Ralph, the vast majority of Australians have done great things
for themselves, Ralphy, despite their questionable ancestry, Ralph. Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge, it's too bad you couldn't do the same, Ralph.
-Mike (having fun taunting Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 21:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr01jl$gri$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #361179 |
On 18.08.2015 11:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:15:25 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com > (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> >>> I'm not doing your homework for you Moron-y >> >> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, I cannot even find even one dubious assumption, Ralph >> let alone 50, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge. > > You wont find a better Irish joke either, Moron-y, when you look in a mirror.. Is that the only dubious assumption you could find? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqacce$2ta$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #360201 |
On 8/10/2015 5:08 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. How does light in > Andromeda INSTANTLY know how to travel at the same speed as light here? > > I would say that requires communication faster than c, wouldn't you. No, it wouldn't. It would if you presumed that Andromeda had to ADJUST the speed from something else other than c relative to the earth to c relative to the earth. But such a presumption is ridiculous, doesn't happen, and isn't needed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 06:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <rl1isadkump1jnshdnr5h7sp1eeuekq7nj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360217 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:27:27 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 8/10/2015 5:08 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. How does light in >> Andromeda INSTANTLY know how to travel at the same speed as light here? >> >> I would say that requires communication faster than c, wouldn't you. > >No, it wouldn't. > >It would if you presumed that Andromeda had to ADJUST the speed from >something else other than c relative to the earth to c relative to the >earth. But such a presumption is ridiculous, doesn't happen, and isn't >needed. Bodkin if you and PA were physicists rather than religious fanatics, you would understand that according to Einstein's second postulate, the distance between a photon emitted in Andromeda and one emitted here in the same direction would remain constant during their lifetimes. But since you are not physicists, you would not be able to comprehend what source independency implies. You need an above average IQ for that. Religious fanatics lie in the abnormally low bracket. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efd74b81-795c-481b-a71a-e094e4636126@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360154 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > Wrong.... bullshit in fact. Read my explanation of the wave equation again. > This time think about what I said. I repeat: AoSin2pi(ft-x/L) simply says that the detector located at x which indicates time t will indicate an Amp of AoSin2pi(ft-x/L). > >There is no "there exists a wave". There is just the math and > >the values given by the detectors. No need of "exist". > > Gawd! You don't even know the basics. That is why *you* systematically failed the simple math riddles posed for fun in this NG... > No wonder you were so easily conned by Einsten. Never coned by E. In fact, when I was confronted with SR/E the first time, I said "bull". I then try to develop my own relativity theory. Lo and behold, got the same exact thing as he, independently. So, thats why I agree with SR: its mathematically consistent, no contradictions, and exp's support it well. > Einstein's theory requires a universal medium No, SR doesnt require it. There are "fluid dynamics" models that predict "c". But in SR, such "fluids" are not necesary and not even part of SR. Some models may use "fluids" and some may not. SR doenst. Live with that fact. > What model of SR accounts for its claim that light from differently moving > sources IMMEDIATELY reaches a common speed. The "axiom" of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. > More importantly, how can a photon in Andromeda know how to move at the same > speed as one on Earth? Irrelevant. We claim that such a photon has speed c. All exp's that we can perform supports this. Live with it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 15:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq5p3t$7bi$5@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359967 |
On 8/7/2015 5:27 PM, HG Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:40:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/7/2015 3:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >>> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >>> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >>> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. >>> >>> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >>> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. >> >> Sorry, you misspoke on that last sentence. Should be "....behaves like a >> wavelike disturbance." Last three words you wrote are spurious and wrong. >> >>> If that >>> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the >>> existence of that medium. >> >> What medium? > > The medium that people like you assume exists > . > Heck no. What are you smoking? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 03:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2l2nlFjbtgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
Am 07.08.2015 22:55, schrieb Henry Wilson DSc.: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that > were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > existence of that medium. > It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. The disks contain an extremely fine grid along the rim. The axis could be spun with very high pace and controlled in angular velocity very precisely. Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, than it is reflect by the rim and modulated by the pattern there. Then the beam is sent to the other end of that axis and mirrored down to that wheel there and gets modulated by a similar pattern. Now the axis is spun with higher pace, until the reflected beam (from 'land') is reflected to 'pits' on the other wheel. From this the one way speed of light can be calculated, since the time light takes from one wheel to the other is the time it takes for the wheel to turn from land to pit (in the above mentioned case). And the latter is the inverse to the turns per second of the axis times the number of pits along the rim. And even if the required rotations per second and the number of pits are quite high, this could actually be built. Its only a little difficult and certainly expensive. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 19:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d2m0r2Fq17oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #359977 |
On 8/08/2015 11:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.08.2015 22:55, schrieb Henry Wilson DSc.: >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. >> What they >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what >> the >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. >> >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. >> If that >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of >> the >> existence of that medium. >> > > It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. > > You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. The disks contain an > extremely fine grid along the rim. The axis could be spun with very high > pace and controlled in angular velocity very precisely. > > Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, than it > is reflect by the rim and modulated by the pattern there. > > Then the beam is sent to the other end of that axis and mirrored down to > that wheel there and gets modulated by a similar pattern. > > Now the axis is spun with higher pace, until the reflected beam (from > 'land') is reflected to 'pits' on the other wheel. > > From this the one way speed of light can be calculated, since the time > light takes from one wheel to the other is the time it takes for the > wheel to turn from land to pit (in the above mentioned case). And the > latter is the inverse to the turns per second of the axis times the > number of pits along the rim. > > And even if the required rotations per second and the number of pits are > quite high, this could actually be built. Its only a little difficult > and certainly expensive. Since the device cannot be made rigid, there will tend to be some rotational offset between the disks, which has to be allowed for. The measurement of the offset would have to be made without making any assumptions about the one-way speed of light, and that's going to be difficult. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 15:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2mfftFtj07U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #359997 |
Am 08.08.2015 11:35, schrieb Sylvia Else: .. >> It is actually possible to measure the one way speed of light directly. >> >> You need a long axis with two disks at both ends. The disks contain an >> extremely fine grid along the rim. The axis could be spun with very high >> pace and controlled in angular velocity very precisely. >> >> Now a laser is sent along the axis and mirrored down to the rim, than it >> is reflect by the rim and modulated by the pattern there. >> >> Then the beam is sent to the other end of that axis and mirrored down to >> that wheel there and gets modulated by a similar pattern. >> >> Now the axis is spun with higher pace, until the reflected beam (from >> 'land') is reflected to 'pits' on the other wheel. >> >> From this the one way speed of light can be calculated, since the time >> light takes from one wheel to the other is the time it takes for the >> wheel to turn from land to pit (in the above mentioned case). And the >> latter is the inverse to the turns per second of the axis times the >> number of pits along the rim. >> >> And even if the required rotations per second and the number of pits are >> quite high, this could actually be built. Its only a little difficult >> and certainly expensive. > > Since the device cannot be made rigid, there will tend to be some > rotational offset between the disks, which has to be allowed for. The > measurement of the offset would have to be made without making any > assumptions about the one-way speed of light, and that's going to be > difficult. You can measure the modulation of a laser-beam with great precision. Also time can be measured VERY precisely. From a time measurement the angular velocity could be derived. Now we could accelerate the rotor well above the needed velocity and let is slow down (in 'drop mode') in an evacuated chamber, only by the slight friction of the bearings. The measuring electronic can then measure the changing pattern in the beam and calculate the speed of light. That is rather simple, since the length of the beam is known and the rpm could be measured. The number of pits along the rim is also known, hence the speed of light could be calculated. In such a 'drop mode' of the measurement the rotor is almost free of forces, hence we would not expect much deformation. The thing is most certainly very expensive, but not out of the range of possibilities. So, I do not really see, why there should be a problem of fundamental nature. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a589874-93ca-4626-bb68-9df63902ef0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360009 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 9:45:37 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > since the length of the beam is known... And that makes your procedure a TWLS and not a OWLS procedure!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web