Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700
Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:29 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 04:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 19:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:06 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 02:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 07:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 21:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 03:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 13:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-14 18:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-16 12:25 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-16 06:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 15:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 19:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:39 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 12:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 08:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-22 13:45 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 04:16 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot back to what he does best: shit eating "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <np57gl$1ume$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390263 |
On 18/08/16 23:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 18.08.2016 00:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes: >>> >>>> How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant >>>> it leaves its source? >>> >>> It doesn't, nor does it need to. >> >> Of course it needs to. IF SR'S EXPLANATION IS CORRECT. SR says the >> beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to >> the 45 mirror (source). So how do they know they are going around a >> circle and not straight ahead? > > SR say the speed of light in vacuum is _invariant_, Henry. That means > that the speed of light is c when measured in the ECI frame, AND it > is c when measured in the inertial frame which is instantly comoving > with the source (mirror). > > The naive idea that light has to adjust its speed to be c relative to > an arbitrary inertial frame, and that it therefore not can be c > relative to two different inertial frames is simply wrong. Oh dear! Paul is a very slow learner. According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v. You can see that clearly portrayed for instance here http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm. However, for those beams to move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame, those departing speed would be quite different from the ones shown. So, again, how does the light know to which frame it should adjust its speed at the instant it leaves its source?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4eccc08-0a86-42fc-aafb-5d4ec40093f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390300 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:58:01 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds (opposite to your > 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v. You can see that clearly > portrayed for instance here > http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm. Oh, Ralphie-boy, you silly goose! Your mathematical incompetence rears its ugly head again. Are you REALLY such a rube that you believe whenever you see a c - v or a c + v in an equation it means light really travels at those speeds? If so, then you are an abysmal moron. If you know the truth but prefer to lie about, then you are despicably dishonest. You have had this problem carefully explained to you before, but you seem to be totally incapable of learning anything. The c - v and c + v terms come about because the beams travel different distances in a rotating loop. Thus they represent c*t +/- v*t, DISTANCES, and the t has been factored out. This is what your link is telling you, but you are too stupid to realize it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np7bjf$u9c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390300 |
On 18.08.2016 22:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 18/08/16 23:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 18.08.2016 00:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes: >>>> >>>>> How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant >>>>> it leaves its source? >>>> >>>> It doesn't, nor does it need to. >>> >>> Of course it needs to. IF SR'S EXPLANATION IS CORRECT. SR says the >>> beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to >>> the 45 mirror (source). So how do they know they are going around a >>> circle and not straight ahead? >> >> SR say the speed of light in vacuum is _invariant_, Henry. That means >> that the speed of light is c when measured in the ECI frame, AND it >> is c when measured in the inertial frame which is instantly comoving >> with the source (mirror). >> >> The naive idea that light has to adjust its speed to be c relative to >> an arbitrary inertial frame, and that it therefore not can be c >> relative to two different inertial frames is simply wrong. > > Oh dear! Paul is a very slow learner. According to SR, in a Sagnac ring > the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two > beams are c+/-v. You can see that clearly portrayed for instance here > http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm. > However, for those beams to move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame, > those departing speed would be quite different from the ones shown. > > So, again, how does the light know to which frame it should adjust its > speed at the instant it leaves its source? > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <np81oi$6eb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390385 |
On 20/08/16 02:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 18.08.2016 22:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> The naive idea that light has to adjust its speed to be c relative to >>> an arbitrary inertial frame, and that it therefore not can be c >>> relative to two different inertial frames is simply wrong. >> >> Oh dear! Paul is a very slow learner. According to SR, in a Sagnac ring >> the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two >> beams are c+/-v. You can see that clearly portrayed for instance here >> http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm. >> However, for those beams to move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame, >> those departing speed would be quite different from the ones shown. >> >> So, again, how does the light know to which frame it should adjust its >> speed at the instant it leaves its source? >> > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf Nothing to say, eh, Paul? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np9d2j$p3o$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390400 |
On 20.08.2016 00:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 20/08/16 02:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 18.08.2016 22:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 18/08/16 23:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> The naive idea that light has to adjust its speed to be c relative to >>>> an arbitrary inertial frame, and that it therefore not can be c >>>> relative to two different inertial frames is simply wrong. >>> >>> Oh dear! Paul is a very slow learner. According to SR, in a Sagnac ring >>> the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two >>> beams are c+/-v. You can see that clearly portrayed for instance here >>> http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm. >>> However, for those beams to move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame, >>> those departing speed would be quite different from the ones shown. >>> >>> So, again, how does the light know to which frame it should adjust its >>> speed at the instant it leaves its source? >>> >> >> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > Nothing to say, eh, Paul? I know it is difficult for you, but you have to _read_ to see what I say: https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf You have however frequently demonstrated that your mathematical illiteracy (or is it simple stupidity?) will prohibit you from understanding anything of it. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npao14$1r2e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390429 |
On 20/08/16 20:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 20.08.2016 00:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 20/08/16 02:19, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> So, again, how does the light know to which frame it should adjust its >>>> speed at the instant it leaves its source? >>>> >>> >>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >> >> Nothing to say, eh, Paul? > > I know it is difficult for you, > but you have to _read_ to see what I say: > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf Paul, you are merely using circular logic to try to prove your claim. You silly little article uses transforms based on the constancy of light speed to demonstrate the constancy of light speed. > You have however frequently demonstrated that your > mathematical illiteracy (or is it simple stupidity?) > will prohibit you from understanding anything of it. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c22b112-73ed-400f-82ef-22277154dd28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390463 |
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:10:32 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > You silly little article uses transforms based on the constancy of light > speed to demonstrate the constancy of light speed. No it doesnt. You cant comprehend what you read. The coordination of an inertial frame makes use of *light*, not its speed. In fact, its speed may even be variable a priori. Once the coordination done, *then* we measure its speed. It turns out that its then speed is constant. (Well actually, it is so by construction of the coordination procedure). This is not a circular argument (but it looks as is, to the untrained eye, such as you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npcvd6$gb3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390463 |
On 21.08.2016 01:10, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 20/08/16 20:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 20.08.2016 00:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Nothing to say, eh, Paul? >> >> I know it is difficult for you, >> but you have to _read_ to see what I say: >> >> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > Paul, you are merely using circular logic to try to prove your claim. > You silly little article uses transforms based on the constancy of light > speed to demonstrate the constancy of light speed. Please stop this babbling nonsense, Ralph. How incoherent is it possible to be? The context is: | On 18.08.2016 00:24, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HGWilson, DSc. wrote: |> |> SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at |> c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source). That is: ============================================================ You claim that SR says the speed of light is NOT invariant. ============================================================ But what SR says is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact! And the fact is that SR says the speed of light is invariant. And that _fact_ is what I claim in this article. https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf Of course I don't _prove_ that the speed of light is invariant, I state the _fact_ that SR says the speed of light is invariant and I demonstrate that according to SR the speed of light can, without contradiction, be c in two different inertial frames in relative motion. Bottom line: ========================================= It is an irrefutable fact that SR says the speed of light in vacuum is invariant. ========================================= So please stop making a blithering idiot of yourself by claiming that SR says otherwise. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npd3rv$10ol$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390506 |
On 22/08/16 05:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 21.08.2016 01:10, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 20/08/16 20:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 20.08.2016 00:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> Nothing to say, eh, Paul? >>> >>> I know it is difficult for you, but you have to _read_ to see >>> what I say: >>> >>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >> >> Paul, you are merely using circular logic to try to prove your >> claim. You silly little article uses transforms based on the >> constancy of light speed to demonstrate the constancy of light >> speed. > > Please stop this babbling nonsense, Ralph. How incoherent is it > possible to be? > > The context is: > > | On 18.08.2016 00:24, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HGWilson, DSc. > wrote: |> |> SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at |> > c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source). > > That is: > ============================================================ You > claim that SR says the speed of light is NOT invariant. > ============================================================ > > But what SR says is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact! > > And the fact is that SR says the speed of light is invariant. > > And that _fact_ is what I claim in this article. > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf Yes, you are merely quoting Lorentz's work and that of Poincare, which was plagiarized by Einstein. They created the transforms you are using to show how light speed will always be MEASURED to have the value c.... but is also assumes that all light moves at c relative to the absolute aether. So does SR even though it replaced the aether's sole function with a simple statement. > Of course I don't _prove_ that the speed of light is invariant, I > state the _fact_ that SR says the speed of light is invariant and I > demonstrate that according to SR the speed of light can, without > contradiction, be c in two different inertial frames in relative > motion. > > Bottom line: ========================================= It is an > irrefutable fact that SR says the speed of light in vacuum is > invariant. ========================================= > > So please stop making a blithering idiot of yourself by claiming that > SR says otherwise. SR says nothing that Lorentz didn't say. ...and since no aether exists, they are both completely wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npfi1k$d9p$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390509 |
On 21.08.2016 22:44, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 22/08/16 05:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 21.08.2016 01:10, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 20/08/16 20:57, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 20.08.2016 00:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nothing to say, eh, Paul? >>>> >>>> I know it is difficult for you, but you have to _read_ to see >>>> what I say: >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >>> >>> Paul, you are merely using circular logic to try to prove your >>> claim. You silly little article uses transforms based on the >>> constancy of light speed to demonstrate the constancy of light >>> speed. >> >> Please stop this babbling nonsense, Ralph. How incoherent is it >> possible to be? >> >> The context is: >> >> | On 18.08.2016 00:24, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> |>SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at >> |> c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source). >> >> >> That is: >> ============================================================ >> You claim that SR says the speed of light is NOT invariant. >> ============================================================ >> >> But what SR says is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact! >> >> And the fact is that SR says the speed of light is invariant. >> >> And that _fact_ is what I claim in this article. >> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > Yes, Good. The rest is irrelevant gobbledygook. > you are merely quoting Lorentz's work and that of Poincare, which > was plagiarized by Einstein. They created the transforms you are using > to show how light speed will always be MEASURED to have the value c.... > but is also assumes that all light moves at c relative to the absolute > aether. So does SR even though it replaced the aether's sole function > with a simple statement. > >> Of course I don't _prove_ that the speed of light is invariant, I >> state the _fact_ that SR says the speed of light is invariant and I >> demonstrate that according to SR the speed of light can, without >> contradiction, be c in two different inertial frames in relative >> motion. >> >> Bottom line: >> ========================================= >> It is an irrefutable fact that SR says >> the speed of light in vacuum is invariant. >> ========================================= >> >> So please stop making a blithering idiot of yourself by claiming that >> SR says otherwise. > > SR says nothing that Lorentz didn't say. > ...and since no aether exists, they are both completely wrong. > One questions, Ralph: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfnbl$tc7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390583 |
On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> > > One questions, Henry: > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the Sun's ECI frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864503c1-159b-4a8d-ab31-953353b7e084@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390593 |
El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> > > > > One questions, Henry: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > > > Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > > A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > Sun's ECI frame. What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to explain others the meaning of what yourself write? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfuo2$18pu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390600 |
On 23/08/16 07:08, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>> >>> One questions, Henry: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>> >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >> >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >> Sun's ECI frame. > > What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that > concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to > explain others the meaning of what yourself write? If you don't know what the sun's ECI frame is, you should not be posting to this NG. If you don't know that the sun's ECI frame is moving relatively to the Earth's ECI frame, you should go back to school. If you can't see that a photon which is emitted at c relative to the sun's ECI frame does not move at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame then there is no hope for you at all. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ed01af8-8bd5-4c39-913b-73e0ae63eacd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390609 |
El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 18:35:50 (UTC-4), HGW. escribió: > On 23/08/16 07:08, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El lunes, 22 de agosto de 2016, 16:29:45 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>> > >>> One questions, Henry: > >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > >>> > >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > >> > >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > >> Sun's ECI frame. > > > > What is for you “Sun’s ECI frame”? What theory (following you) uses that > > concept? Maybe the today Special Relativity (SR)? Are you totally unable to > > explain others the meaning of what yourself write? > > If you don't know what the sun's ECI frame is, you should not be posting > to this NG. The point is what is for you "sun's ECI frame", I know very well that it is only an hallucination from your part, being you totally unable to say something rational about it. > If you don't know that the sun's ECI frame is moving relatively to the > Earth's ECI frame, you should go back to school. Let us see who is the one needing to go back to school. The today denoted GPS ECI is a 1686 Newtonian limited center of mass system where his equations hold good, what 1905 Einstein denotes as "stationary system" with a well-defined relative time to it. There exists a unique ECI system (saying "Earth's" is redundant, and "Sun's" an absurdity). No, does not exist at all any "sun's ECI" moving relatively to the ECI; the unique entities that can be moving in it (with Newtonian equations holding good) are the ones taking into account when determining its center of mass at the relative rest of the system (the Sun and other Solar System's bodies are excluded, even the Moon). > If you can't see that a photon which is emitted at c relative to the > sun's ECI frame does not move at the same speed as one emitted by the > same source at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame then there is no hope > for you at all. > All signal transmissions broadcasted from GPS operative satellites propagate at the same isotropic c velocity in the ECI, a well established experimental fact since almost four decades. We have no reason at all to put in doubt that a similar GPS in the Solar system (or any other Newtonian center of mass system, p.e. in the Moon), will behave in a similar way with the two 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) original postulates holding good. By the way, it is already an experimental fact the relativity of time predicted by 1905R. The ECI time is known to be a little different to the Solar system one, a good point to be taken into account for all interested here in the Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npfrnl$vjh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390593 |
On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> >> >> One questions, Henry: >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> >> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > > A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > Sun's ECI frame. The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to your blind faith, it was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Ralph? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npfvia$19un$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390604 |
On 23/08/16 07:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> >>> >>> One questions, Henry: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>> >>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >> >> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >> Sun's ECI frame. > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according > to your blind faith, it was: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? Here is a plot of what a third observer sees. S Earth^ Sun S(u,v) ------p>(c+v^)---p>(c+u) S is light source moving at vector v in the Earth's ECI frame and at u in the sun's. The 'p's are light pulses emitted simultaneously from the same source. It should be clear that the pulses will not move at the same speeds or in the same directions. In other words, that will not maintain the same spatial configuration with each other over time. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nphvtk$v2b$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390610 |
On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > On 23/08/16 07:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> One questions, Henry: >>>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >>>> >>>> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. >>> >>> A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving >>> at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the >>> Sun's ECI frame. >> >> The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according >> to your blind faith, it was: >> >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> >> Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > Here is a plot of what a third observer sees. > > S Earth^ Sun > > S(u,v) ------p>(c+v^)---p>(c+u) > > S is light source moving at vector v in the Earth's ECI frame and at u > in the sun's. The 'p's are light pulses emitted simultaneously from the > same source. > > It should be clear that the pulses will not move at the same speeds or > in the same directions. In other words, that will not maintain the same > spatial configuration with each other over time. > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to your blind faith, it was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npidao$ucg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390663 |
On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to > your blind faith, it was: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > invariant? > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' (relative to the source). These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated INERTIAL frame rather than the source. I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it should depart from its source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f2207ea-398e-49ef-be97-385a06a6e565@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390680 |
El martes, 23 de agosto de 2016, 16:57:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió:
> On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote:
>
> > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to
> > your blind faith, it was:
> >
> > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not
> > invariant?
> >
> > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry?
> >
> > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
>
> I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed'
> (relative to the source).
> These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro
> because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated
> INERTIAL frame rather than the source.
> I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it
> should depart from its source.
I can give you the 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) answer:
By 1905R first and second postulates, constant isotropic light speed is always
c in ANY stationary system (where Newtonian equations hold good, and must be
used the relative space and time defined to such type of system). The two 1905R
postulates find huge experimental support with the very accurate GPS operation
using the stationary ECI system. You can apply the ordinary algebraic vector
subtraction of velocities between any two moving entities in the ECI, as the
satellite source and the broadcasted signals they transmit, but the resulting
("closing", "relative", or any other adjective that you want) velocity between
them is NOT used at all for any thing in the GPS.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdb10e57-1867-4f77-9c72-f6cb7da79f68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390742 |
W dniu środa, 24 sierpnia 2016 13:51:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > El martes, 23 de agosto de 2016, 16:57:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > > On 24/08/16 03:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > On 23.08.2016 00:49, HGW. wrote: > > > > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according to > > > your blind faith, it was: > > > > > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > > > invariant? > > > > > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Henry? > > > > > > https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > > > > I am referring to what you call 'closing speed' or 'departing speed' > > (relative to the source). > > These are claimed to differ from c in for instance GPS or a ring gyro > > because light is supposed to move at c relative to the associated > > INERTIAL frame rather than the source. > > I was merely asking which inertial frame tells the light how fast it > > should depart from its source. > > I can give you the 1905 Einstein Relativity (1905R) answer: > > By 1905R first and second postulates, constant isotropic light speed is always > c in ANY stationary system (where Newtonian equations hold good, and must be > used the relative space and time defined to such type of system). The two 1905R > postulates find huge experimental support with the very accurate GPS operation > using the stationary ECI system. Obviously, one stationary system is a really huge support for "in ANY stationary system" statement. Unfortunately, another important postulate of The Shit - "good clocks are unsynchronized clocks" - has no support from GPS at all:(.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web