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 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdc2704a-9e88-46a7-bf24-806ab503b4a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391388 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:44:53 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > 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. On the other hand, my recreational interests (to judge by the last few hundred books that I have read, the last few including biographies of Faraday, Maxwell, Ramanujan, Galileo, J.C. Venter, Barbara McClintock, Darwin, Archimedes etc.) would appear to lie more in the _history_ of science, so I do find myself caring about such minutiae. Walther Ritz is a much misunderstood figure on these newsgroups. He was a theoretical physicist of the highest caliber, widely regarded by his peers as one of the best of his generation. In contrast to Einstein, who was a champion of the twin revolutions of quantum mechanics and relativity, Ritz firmly believed that it was possible to reform classical mechanics from within. Rather paradoxically, although opposed the the quantum, Ritz's name is currently associated with several computational techniques in use for the solution of quantum mechanics problems. It should be remembered that although Maxwell's equations had been around since the early 1870s, the understanding and exegesis of these equations was still evolving. Lorentz's interpretation of Maxwell's equations as manifest in his "electron theory" (with the understanding that what early 20th century physicists understood as an "electron" was rather different than the present understanding) was perhaps still the dominant interpretation, with Einstein's world view considered merely as an elegant alternative. Max Abraham's theory of the rigid spherical electron presented a serious challenge to Lorentz and Einstein, especially since early experiments appeared much more consistent with Abraham's theory than with Lorentz/Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments When we on these newsgroups think of Ritz's reworking of Maxwell's equations, we tend to think only of the emission theory aspect of his reformulation. To Ritz, emission theory was merely an exploratory framework for thinking about alternatives to Maxwell's electrodynamics. Among many other considerations, Ritz was seeking an alternative to the quantum hypothesis that avoided the issue of "ultraviolet catastrophe". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe Ritz pointed out that it was the possibility of advanced potentials in Maxwell's electrodynamics that allowed such ludicrous calculations. Lorentz's interpretation of Maxwell's equations also made use of absolute coordinates, which violated Galilean relativity. The notion of an aether that could act upon matter while not reacting violated Newton's third law, and the definition of energy density in the aether was vague, to say the least. Long before Einstein, Ritz was thinking of the possibility of a unified theory of gravitation and electrodynamics, and it was clear that there was no possibility of such within Maxwell's framework. All of these problems led Ritz to think that there was perhaps a basic problem with the field concept. Ritz's reformulation of electrodynamics postulated charges that interacted exclusively through retarded forces. Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, the two agreed to disagree. Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 Ritz's writings show him to be extremely respectful of experiment as providing the fundamental underpinnings for theoretical development. I like to think that had Ritz lived to see the triumphs of special/general relativity, the definitive disproof of his version of emission theory, and the achievements of the quantum hypothesis, that he would have had the grace to admit defeat while continuing to be productive, even as he had proven himself productive in the other branch of the new physics that he mistrusted, quantum mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6067e21-059f-4b7f-97ef-8bd7e2467d48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391402 |
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current > interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum > mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, > the two agreed to disagree. > Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des > Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. On page 185, the original article by Einstein. On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqfgrq$v03$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391464 |
On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current >> interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum >> mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, >> the two agreed to disagree. >> Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des >> Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 > > Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. > On page 185, the original article by Einstein. > On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. > On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein would never have gotten past first base.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f0e2388-6581-4ca7-be30-cedbcf0720ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391490 |
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. > > On page 185, the original article by Einstein. > > On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. > > On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 > > I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein > would never have gotten past first base. The fact is, that Miller and Tomaschek definitively disproved the Ritz variant of emission theory. Period. Not to mention Lenard's variant of emission theory. I doubt that you can summarize for me the issue on which Einstein and Ritz disagreed and the significance of that issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqi82l$l8n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391496 |
On 04/09/16 08:11, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. >>> On page 185, the original article by Einstein. >>> On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. >>> On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. >>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 >> >> I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein >> would never have gotten past first base. > > The fact is, that Miller and Tomaschek definitively disproved the Ritz variant > of emission theory. Period. Not to mention Lenard's variant of emission theory. I have revise the whole theory in order to squash such flawed 'refutations'. BaTh has never been refuted. All knoemember correctly.wn experiments support it. > I doubt that you can summarize for me the issue on which Einstein and Ritz > disagreed and the significance of that issue. It is on my old computer...electrodynamic issue IIRC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqd1ja$1j02$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391388 |
On 02/09/16 11:44, Tom Roberts wrote: > 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. Your ignorance is due to the fact that you are making incorrect assumptions in the first place. For instance, what you believe are spectroscopic binaries could easily be something entirely different. I have already explained why all other claimed refutations of BaTh are flawed. It is 100% obvious now that light is basically ballistic in free space but can experience minute accelerations during long term travel. However, where 'fields' exist, so does a medium that might be likened to classical aether and which can effect light by amounts depending on the 'field density.'. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq8vf1$1511$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391330 |
On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts wrote: > 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: BaTh is a revised version of standard Ballistic theory. It is immune to all past 'refutations'. > 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 Where did you get that idea? > 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. Of course. They must be MAR or the answer will not be c. BaTh is the only theory that predicts TWLS to be constant. > 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". Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the vicinity of a star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of molecular or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. > 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. BaTh is under development. I cannot change the course of physics in a few years single handedly... The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence that Einstein's P2 is wrong...as it must be. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QM-dna3SG8cz7lXKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391351 |
On 9/1/16 9/1/16 - 5:21 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts 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 > > Where did you get that idea? From my general knowledge and study of physics. In particular, (a), (b), and (c) are essentially what it means for light to be "ballistic" -- if one considers a mirror to be a perfectly elastic reflector, then they apply equally well to bullets with c replaced by their muzzle velocity. In this last I mean the speed c, not the item (c). > BaTh is the only theory > that predicts TWLS to be constant. You repeatedly demonstrate your general ignorance and inability to read. "BaTh" is not at all "the only" such theory. You OUGHT to know that SR predicts this; more to the point: the usual ballistic theory I just described does so. AS I SAID, and to which you responded "of course". > Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses > but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the vicinity of a > star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of molecular > or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. So how is it that light leaves at c from visual binaries [A] and spectroscopic binaries [B], but leaves at c+v from the supposed constituents moving inside cepheids [C]? [A] The constituents of the system are fully resolved. [B] The constituents are partially resolved. [C] No constituents of the system are resolved. From your claims here, it should be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: light should leave at c relative to each constituent of a visible binary, and leave at c relative to a cepheid (rapid unification near a large mass). That is, light from a visible binary should come to us at c+v, with v the orbital speed of each constituent projected onto our line-of-sight. Ditto for spectroscopic binaries (though it is not quite so clear-cut). THIS IS OBSERVABLY WRONG. And, of course, fantasizing that cepheids have unresolved constituents whose motion produces their variable intensity is inconsistent with the lack of spectroscopic evidence for that motion -- cepheids are NOT spectroscopic binaries. > The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption > that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence > that Einstein's P2 is wrong Not at all. If c+v applied to visible binaries then you would have a point, BUT IT DOESN'T. And that OBSERVABLE FACT demolishes your claims. And, of course, in "BaTh" light does NOT move at c+v.... (At least today...). > as it must be. Once more you reveal that your approach is not science. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqe568$sic$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391367 |
On 02/09/16 04:30, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/1/16 9/1/16 - 5:21 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts 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 >> >> Where did you get that idea? > > From my general knowledge and study of physics. In particular, (a), > (b), and (c) are essentially what it means for light to be "ballistic" > -- if one considers a mirror to be a perfectly elastic reflector, then > they apply equally well to bullets with c replaced by their muzzle > velocity. a) is correct, b) is uncertain from lack of theory or evidence and c) is your own theory's (incorrect) claim. > In this last I mean the speed c, not the item (c). > > >> BaTh is the only theory >> that predicts TWLS to be constant. > > You repeatedly demonstrate your general ignorance and inability to read. > "BaTh" is not at all "the only" such theory. You OUGHT to know that SR > predicts this; more to the point: the usual ballistic theory I just > described does so. AS I SAID, and to which you responded "of course". SR says light speed is c relative to the source but predicts TWLS would be the same irrespective of 'mirror' movement, relative to the source. BaTh does not say that. > >> Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses >> but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the >> vicinity of a >> star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of >> molecular >> or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. > > So how is it that light leaves at c from visual binaries [A] and > spectroscopic binaries [B], but leaves at c+v from the supposed > constituents moving inside cepheids [C]? Visual binaries have very long periods...so you can't say much about them. Spetroscopic binaries are probably not binaries at all. Every aspect of astronomy is under question. > [A] The constituents of the system are fully resolved. > [B] The constituents are partially resolved. > [C] No constituents of the system are resolved.> > From your claims here, it should be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: light should > leave at c relative to each constituent of a visible binary, and leave > at c relative to a cepheid (rapid unification near a large mass). That > is, light from a visible binary should come to us at c+v, with v the > orbital speed of each constituent projected onto our line-of-sight. That is what happens. So what we see is a Willusion. You seem to be under the impression that what we see is real. > Ditto for spectroscopic binaries (though it is not quite so clear-cut). > THIS IS OBSERVABLY WRONG. What you are observing cannot be wrong. How it is interpreted is wrong. And, of course, fantasizing that cepheids have > unresolved constituents whose motion produces their variable intensity > is inconsistent with the lack of spectroscopic evidence for that motion > -- cepheids are NOT spectroscopic binaries. On the contrary. A feature of Cepheids is that their brightness curves is about a mirror image of their apparent velocity curves. It was that fact, put forward by your old colleague 'Jerry' aka 'Minor Crank' that encouraged me to look for an explanation. That is basically why I discovered ADoppler...which Paul Andersen now understands. >> The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption >> that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence >> that Einstein's P2 is wrong > > Not at all. If c+v applied to visible binaries then you would have a > point, BUT IT DOESN'T. And that OBSERVABLE FACT demolishes your claims. It has never been tested on visual binaries because we only see p[arts of an orbit and what we see is not what actually happens. > And, of course, in "BaTh" light does NOT move at c+v.... (At least > today...). According to BaTh, light moves at c relative to it source. How could it do anything else? It has no other reference. I think it does so because its souc is invariably a 'field'...and fields are the equivalent of classical aether ...so according to Maxwell, the generate quantum escapes from the field at c. >> as it must be. > > Once more you reveal that your approach is not science. On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3ae148b-c9b6-45d2-84f8-334a5852f2d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391455 |
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:29:49 AM UTC-5, HGW. wrote: > On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many > other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. What other scientists? Even Androcles, your best friend on these newsgroups, thought that your take on emission theory was a bunch of hooey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqgn9p$c3u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391461 |
On 03/09/16 23:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:29:49 AM UTC-5, HGW. wrote: > >> On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many >> other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. > > What other scientists? There is a big Russian movement that supports BaTh. > Even Androcles, your best friend on these newsgroups, thought that your take > on emission theory was a bunch of hooey. As far as I can see, it is only the west's physics establishment that gives a stuff about Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <892c3ae2-8797-40b3-8a9c-91e94edbf3df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391510 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:51:08 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 03/09/16 23:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:29:49 AM UTC-5, HGW. wrote: > > > >> On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many > >> other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. > > > > What other scientists? > > There is a big Russian movement that supports BaTh. What movement? Names, please. I know of several emission theory crackpots with names that I presume are Slavic, but most of them are not BaTh supporters. > > Even Androcles, your best friend on these newsgroups, thought that your take > > on emission theory was a bunch of hooey. > > As far as I can see, it is only the west's physics establishment that > gives a stuff about Einstein. When your information comes exclusively from the internet, and all you visit are crackpot web sites and pseudoscience blogs, I'm sure that that would be the impression that you get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqiai0$nj5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391515 |
On 04/09/16 20:19, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:51:08 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 03/09/16 23:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:29:49 AM UTC-5, HGW. wrote: >>> >>>> On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many >>>> other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. >>> >>> What other scientists? >> >> There is a big Russian movement that supports BaTh. > > What movement? > > Names, please. I know of several emission theory crackpots with names that I presume are Slavic, but most of them are not BaTh supporters. You could start here: http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ >>> Even Androcles, your best friend on these newsgroups, thought that your take >>> on emission theory was a bunch of hooey. >> >> As far as I can see, it is only the west's physics establishment that >> gives a stuff about Einstein. > > When your information comes exclusively from the internet, and all you visit > are crackpot web sites and pseudoscience blogs, I'm sure that that would be the > impression that you get. Most of he crackpots are right here, supporting the plagiarizing idiot Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqj4g2$sra$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391534 |
On 05.09.2016 01:25, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > You could start here: > http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ Alert! Bitdefender blocked this page This page is blocked by Bitdefender Antifraud filter. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqkush$sq6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391556 |
On 05/09/16 16:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 05.09.2016 01:25, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> You could start here: >> http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ >> > > Alert! > Bitdefender blocked this page > This page is blocked by Bitdefender Antifraud filter. Alert! Paul Andersen will do anything to keep truth away from his brain. The web page opens up quite normally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9qCdnYrI9rM-v1HKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391510 |
On 9/4/16 9/4/16 3:51 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > There is a big Russian movement that supports BaTh. Seems unlikely; in any case, there is an even bigger group of Russians at Fermilab, plus many more who attend both accelerator and HEP conferences and publish in the relevant journals. These are two fields that depend on SR and could not work at all if "BaTh" were valid instead. (Of course Russians are not unique in this, and one could say the same about any group of accelerator or particle PHYSICISTS.) But since "BaTh" is not a theory, but rather a mish-mash of rather vague notions in Wilson's head, it changes over time, and he is making up special pleads that bring it more in line with SR.... But this is not a competition, and science is not subject to votes. Wilson rejects any experiment that does not conform to his preconceived notions, which excludes him from the scientific community. There are many experiments that confirm SR and refute "BaTh" (insofar as that is possible), but Wilson prefers his fantasy world and ignores them. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqiap7$o6h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391518 |
On 04/09/16 23:33, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/4/16 9/4/16 3:51 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> There is a big Russian movement that supports BaTh. > > Seems unlikely; in any case, there is an even bigger group of > Russians at Fermilab, plus many more who attend both accelerator and > HEP conferences and publish in the relevant journals. These are two > fields that depend on SR and could not work at all if "BaTh" were > valid instead. (Of course Russians are not unique in this, and one > could say the same about any group of accelerator or particle > PHYSICISTS.) > > But since "BaTh" is not a theory, but rather a mish-mash of rather > vague notions in Wilson's head, it changes over time, and he is > making up special pleads that bring it more in line with SR.... SR is not a theory since it is based on illogical nonsense, ie., that the speed of light is c in space. Nothing is space has a 'speed'... > But this is not a competition, and science is not subject to votes. > Wilson rejects any experiment that does not conform to his > preconceived notions, which excludes him from the scientific > community. There are many experiments that confirm SR and refute > "BaTh" (insofar as that is possible), but Wilson prefers his fantasy > world and ignores them. No credible experiment has confirmed SR or refuted BaTh. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccf0a11c-9e70-444f-8e47-b9bc138ca2f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391535 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 5:29:47 PM UTC-6, Ralphie-boy admits: > > BaThWater is not a theory since it is based on illogical nonsense, ie., > that the speed of light is not c in space. > Nothing is space has a 'speed'... > > No credible experiment has confirmed BaThWater or refuted SR. At last Ralph has come clean in one of his lies. Now it's time that he admit his true identity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq4pdd$qfq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391182 |
On 29.08.2016 21:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 29/08/16 23:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> 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. Thanks for a clear and correct answer. Why was it so hard to state? Was it because this answer is an admittance of being wrong when you claimed: "SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source)." and: "According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v." ? I predict that you according to your MO soon will claim that according to SR the speed of light is not invariant. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq4rpl$19q0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391252 |
On 31/08/16 06:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: ....material that shows he is going backwards... > On 29.08.2016 21:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> No Paul. SR keeps claiming light speed IS invariant. > > Thanks for a clear and correct answer. > Why was it so hard to state? > > Was it because this answer is an admittance of being > wrong when you claimed: > "SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move > at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source)." > and: > "According to SR, in a Sagnac ring the departing speeds > (opposite to your 'closing speeds') of the two beams are c+/-v." > ? > > I predict that you according to your MO soon will claim > that according to SR the speed of light is not invariant. Light does not have a 'speed'. It can have relative speeds. Light in space, like anything in space, has no particular 'speed'. Other objects have a variety of speeds relative to IT. Relatively moving objects must have different speeds relative to a particular photon in space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web