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 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b5c208f-9a2c-4c33-9159-19400a577a38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390743 |
El miércoles, 24 de agosto de 2016, 8:23:44 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > 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:(. In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are you referring? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npnj33$uro$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390748 |
On 24/08/16 23:15, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >> >> 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:(. > > In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, > showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the > stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are > you referring? All GPS clocks have to be in absolute synch with each other. That is the main criterion for the system to operate. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dded326-44fc-43eb-87ab-d8cb641ddfe9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390906 |
El jueves, 25 de agosto de 2016, 16:06:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 24/08/16 23:15, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > >> > >> 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:(. > > > > In the operative GPS ALL clocks are good and synchronized ones, > > showing always the common (unique) ECI time corresponding to ALL the > > stationary space points. To what "good and unsynchronized clock" are > > you referring? > > All GPS clocks have to be in absolute synch with each other. That is the > main criterion for the system to operate. > According to 1905 Einstein's time definition relative to some stationary system, we have a unique relative common time in ALL the stationary space points of that system. That stationary space is NOT the Newtonian absolute one, every different body set of interacting bodies determines a different stationary space. If the body set is the one of all Earth's parts, we obtain the relative stationary space of the GPS ECI. It is very easy to visualize that space, the one where the Earth is rotating, with a very accurate known angular velocity. The Center of Mass of the system and the two poles are always at rest, belonging to the rotating axis that is only an infinite straight line of that space with ALL points at rest. Yes Henry, see how the body set of interacting Earth's parts determine its own relative space to themselves, with interactions ruled by Newton’s laws. 1905 Einstein then put a real (or virtual) clock in each point and consider them synchronized showing always a unique time. The unique point that you do not understand yet is that the time all synchronized clocks in the ECI is no less relative than the space determined by them. They determine both, its relative space, and its RELATIVE time, not an absolute one as you remain thinking. Conceiving that the rotating Earth is the whole universe, its time coincides with the Newtonian absolute one. We can made a similar assumption with the Solar system or the Galaxy, or even with a hypothetic whole Universe where 1905 Einstein's time coincides with 1686 Newton's one. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqg4c$1pgj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390931 |
On 26/08/16 08:28, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El jueves, 25 de agosto de 2016, 16:06:00 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > > The unique point that you do not understand yet is that the time all > synchronized clocks in the ECI is no less relative than the space determined by > them. They determine both, its relative space, and its RELATIVE time, not an > absolute one as you remain thinking. Conceiving that the rotating Earth is the > whole universe, its time coincides with the Newtonian absolute one. We can made > a similar assumption with the Solar system or the Galaxy, or even with a > hypothetic whole Universe where 1905 Einstein's time coincides with 1686 > Newton's one. Rubbish. Space and TIME are totally unrelated entities. An instant in time is the same instant everywhere. Time cannot be dependent on movement because movement itself is a function of time. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npkomn$alk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390680 |
On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > 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? The reason why I ask: On 18.08.2016, you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: "SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source)." This is equivalent to claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant. On 18.08.2016, you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote: "According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v." This is equivalent to claiming that according to SR, the speed of light is not invariant. And I could dig up a lot of other examples where you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, claim that SR says the speed of light is not invariant. >> >> Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Ralph? >> Ralph tries to evade the question: > 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. Sure "These are claimed to differ from c" by you, Ralph malcom Rabbidge, but that is well known and of little interest. I note with interest that you, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge don't you dare to repeat the claim that "SR says the speed of light light is not invariant". So I ask you again: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question. https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npnl43$12pf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390778 |
On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not >>> invariant? > > So I ask you again: > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still hold. However, SR also says that light moves at c relative to inertial frames. So, if a laser emits a horizontal beam eastward at the equator, that beam leaves the laser at c-0.46 kms/sec, as viewed in the ECI frame. My question...which you don't seem to understand at all ...asks why the beam's departing speed will be determined by the inertial frame of the Earth, and not, for instance by the inertial frame of an aligned distant star? In a Sagnac ring, how does the light know it will be deflected around a circle when it leaves its source? If it didn't, it would depart from its source at c rather than the claimed c+v. Do you understand now Paul? I am asking you to justify the SR claim that observed speed can differ from what you call 'closing speed'. > I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dcfcf0e-660d-464b-badb-f74ccfb068b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390911 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > On 23.08.2016 22:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > >>> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not > >>> invariant? > > > > > So I ask you again: > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > hold. No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry on spacetime. I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples and the oranges separate). For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. It only provides abstract models with the intent of being able to calculate chosen experimental quantities. Mathematically or logically there is nothing wrong with relativity (or any other mature physical theory). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f6d7b3b-e6e9-4e2a-a9a2-0d9278a7d3a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390920 |
W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 23:11:04 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > are all _philosophical_ Quoting: "Another frustrated engineer. So what else is new.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npqgbp$1pqn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390920 |
On 26/08/16 07:11, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light >> always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth >> is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still >> hold. > > No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry > on spacetime. ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. That makes them both crap. > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples > and the oranges separate). > > For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know > why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but > note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? > It only provides abstract models with the intent of being able to calculate > chosen experimental quantities. > > Mathematically or logically there is nothing wrong with relativity (or any > other mature physical theory). > > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae77ec27-5284-4e77-9796-5267384e1bd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391009 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 3:37:49 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 26/08/16 07:11, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > >> SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > >> always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > >> is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > >> hold. > > > > No, it's not par. It's simply a model using the Minkowski geometry > > on spacetime. > > ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. > That makes them both crap. An opinion. Not science. > > I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections > > are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples > > and the oranges separate). > > > > For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know > > why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but > > note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. > > Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what > physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? Point is physics is not required to answer the fundamental "why" question. This is a philosophical problem, not scientific. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npvd04$jkq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391017 |
On 27/08/16 09:15, JanPB wrote: >> ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. >> That makes them both crap. > > An opinion. Not science. > >>> I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections >>> are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples >>> and the oranges separate). >>> >>> For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know >>> why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but >>> note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. >> >> Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what >> physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? > > Point is physics is not required to answer the fundamental "why" question. > This is a philosophical problem, not scientific. > More crap! Philosophy has never advanced beyond IDENTIFYING questions. Science, generally, has answered most of the traditional ones and has raised far more of its own. > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq1ec9$ehp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390911 |
On 25.08.2016 22:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> I ask you again: >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > hold. Your opinion of SR is irrelevant and of no interest. The question is what you claim SR says. > However, SR also says that light moves at c relative to inertial frames. > So, if a laser emits a horizontal beam eastward at the equator, that > beam leaves the laser at c-0.46 kms/sec, as viewed in the ECI frame. Nonsense. SR says: The beam leaves the laser at c as observed (measured) in the ECI frame. The laser moves at 0.46 kms/sec as observed (measured) in the ECI frame. The speed c-0.46 kms/sec is not viewed (measured) in the ECI frame. > My question...which you don't seem to understand at all ...asks why the > beam's departing speed will be determined by the inertial frame of the > Earth, and not, for instance by the inertial frame of an aligned distant > star? In a Sagnac ring, how does the light know it will be deflected around a > circle when it leaves its source? If it didn't, it would depart from its > source at c rather than the claimed c+v. > > Do you understand now Paul? I understand that you are so confused that you are asking meaningless questions as the above, and are uttering meaningless statements like the below: > I am asking you to justify the SR claim that > observed speed can differ from what you call 'closing speed'. There is but one observed (measured) speed of light in vacuum: c ! Nothing, including light, is moving with what YOU call 'closing speed', so how could it be observed (measured)? But all this were diversions. ----------------------------------------------------------- The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question. You did. I was right. I predict that you will keep fleeing. https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf (I don't call anything 'closing speed') -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq21hq$oog$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391174 |
On 29/08/16 23:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.08.2016 22:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> I am asking you to justify the SR claim that observed speed can >> differ from what you call 'closing sp.eed'. > > There is but one observed (measured) speed of light in vacuum: c ! TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh. > Nothing, including light, is moving with what YOU call 'closing > speed', so how could it be observed (measured)? > > But all this were diversions. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming > that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? No Paul. SR keeps claiming light speed IS invariant. That's why it is completely wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f19b950-b590-4d81-b53c-1683ebd9d5d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391182 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh. Dead wrong, mathematically incompetent one. Ballistic theory predicts that TWLS is c + v. > > The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming > > that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > No Paul. SR keeps claiming light speed IS invariant. That's why it is > completely wrong. BaTH keeps claiming that TWLS is invariant. That's why IT'S wrong. It doesn't even agree with ballistic theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y-Wdnd8k971bFFrKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391195 |
On 8/29/16 8/29/16 7:47 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh.
>
> Dead wrong, mathematically incompetent one. Ballistic theory predicts
> that TWLS is c + v.
[TWLS = "two way light speed", i.e. the (vacuum) speed of
light measured over a round-trip (out-and-back) path.]
Not really. The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh",
includes:
a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame
of the source
b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and has the
same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the mirror
c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to any
frame
These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of which frame is
used for the measurement, which is always made in the rest frame of source and
mirror.
But that is MOST DEFINITELY not "BaTh", as in "BaTh", light does not always move
ballistically, and there is some "magic" property that makes it join up with
other light rays and somehow "merge" speeds. Wilson has never discussed or
explained how, why, or when this happens, only that it somehow manages to happen
with precisely the right value whenever Wilson needs it to avoid some
embarrassing failure of "BaTh".
As I say, "BaTh" is not a physical theory, as it changes according
to Wilson's whim, and has a special plead for every experiment.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <575c1e44-d3ab-40fb-9c4c-4f4eace85372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391330 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > ....The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh", > includes: > a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame > of the source > b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and has the > same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the mirror > c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to any > frame > These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of which frame is > used for the measurement, which is always made in the rest frame of source and > mirror. As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh fails to correlate with reality. In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm predictions as opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in discussion on these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse characteristics have been proposed. What you described above would, I believe, correspond to the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory. Reflected beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror. Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light. Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that of a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam undergoes. The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to disprove other forms of emission theory. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light It wasn't until 1924 that Dayton Miller and Rudolf Tomaschek independently conducted MMX-type experiments using extraterrestrial light sources (sunlight, moonlight, starlight, Jupiter light) that served to rule out Ritz theory and other emission theories (Tomaschek's experiments were specifically directed towards testing Lenard's variant of emission theory, which postulated a gradual re-adjustment of the speed of light from its initial speed to c with respect to the universal aether, thus "explaining away" de Sitter's arguments).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba464c1d-89a1-470f-bd9a-17fe29683dae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:49:43 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that there was > no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between > the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of special relativity. This included > Sagnac's experiment This is false, sagnac falsifies Ritz' theory. (So does Ives-Stilwell). Both are terrestrial interferometric experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqab9n$1h83$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On 01/09/16 14:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of >> which frame is used for the measurement, which is always made in >> the rest frame of source and mirror. > > As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined > special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh > fails to correlate with reality. There are no such cases. > In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm > predictions as opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often > forgotten in discussion on these newsgroups that a variety of > emission theories of diverse characteristics have been proposed. > > What you described above would, I believe, correspond to the > Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory. Reflected beams > essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their incident > speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror. > > Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a reflected > beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a mirror, > regardless of the speed of the incident light. The answer will not be known until somebody actually measures the OW speed with two clocks. Actually, it is much easier to COMPARE the two speeds, fore and back. > Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially > bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that of > a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once > emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always > retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light > source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam undergoes. Yes. Ritz was wrong on that one......but there is no evidence to say what actually happens at reflection....although classical optics explains it pretty well. > The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that > there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that > would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions > of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as > experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to > disprove other forms of emission theory. > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light This type of experiment is doomed to failure. According to BaTh, wavelength is absolute. Since the path lengths are the same no matter what the mirror speed is, there will be no fringe movement. Opponents of BaTh make the same mistake when they claim that Sagnac refutes the theory. Basically, light speed cannot be measured with interference techniques. > It wasn't until 1924 that Dayton Miller and Rudolf Tomaschek > independently conducted MMX-type experiments using extraterrestrial > light sources (sunlight, moonlight, starlight, Jupiter light) that > served to rule out Ritz theory and other emission theories > (Tomaschek's experiments were specifically directed towards testing > Lenard's variant of emission theory, which postulated a gradual > re-adjustment of the speed of light from its initial speed to c with > respect to the universal aether, thus "explaining away" de Sitter's > arguments). BaTh includes the likelihood that all light moving in a particular direction tends toward a common speed. There is good reason to think that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fd81cc9-e1be-4eae-8cda-0e10d29eda50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391380 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 5:49:32 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 01/09/16 14:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined > > special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh > > fails to correlate with reality. > > There are no such cases. On the contrary. BaTh is wrong in practically ***EVERY*** prediction, even WITH your special pleading. You have not successfully predicted a single stellar luminosity curve at multiple wavelengths, for instance, nor successfully correlated a single, solitary luminosity curve with actual Doppler ***measurements*** as opposed to pointing out superficial similarities in shape (totally ignoring scale) between radial velocity curves and your BaTh predictions. You fantasize a lot about your imaginary successes, but the fact remains that you have none.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MfqdneiK-dkSRFXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On 8/31/16 8/31/16 11:49 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm predictions as > opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in discussion on > these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse characteristics > have been proposed. I am fully aware of this, which is why I called what I described "the USUAL ballistic theory". I did not want to get bogged down in details that are irrelevant to my argument. Nor did I want to spend time researching who said what, so I just described how bullets behave, translated to light. I know of no ballistic theory of light that is not refuted by basic observations of visual binaries, spectroscopic binaries, and a large number of direct laboratory experiments. I don't really care about the minutiae of refuted theories. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web