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 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq614d$322$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391256 |
On 30.08.2016 22:54, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 31/08/16 06:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> 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. > Your blind faith is irrelevant and of no interest. It doesn't change the fact that you reluctantly have admitted being wrong about what SR 'say'. Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqd7v9$1pt6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391282 |
On 31/08/16 17:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.08.2016 22:54, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> > > Your blind faith is irrelevant and of no interest. > > It doesn't change the fact that you reluctantly > have admitted being wrong about what SR 'say'. > > Case closed. Paul, it must be very hard for you realize that I am right and have been right all along...apart from the occasional typo. No inertial object has a 'speed'...and that includes light. Other objects are moving relatively to that object. That is not fantasy, it is called relativistic physics. So how is it that every object in the universe has a unique speed relative to every light pulse? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1349fce-dadb-4e16-90b9-029bf8be346f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390604 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:44:23 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 22.08.2016 22:29, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 23/08/16 04:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >>> > >> > >> One questions, Henry: > >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > >> > >> Please answer yes or no, no gobbledygook. > > > > A photon moving at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame cannot be moving > > at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative to the > > Sun's ECI frame. > > The question was not if the speed of light is invariant according > to your blind faith, it was: Invariant speed of light requires an invariant unit of clock time (including a clock second). But according to SR math a clock second in A's frame is corresponded to 1/gamma second in B's frame. That means that there is no invariant unit of clock time and therefore your claim of invariant speed of light is a bogus claim. > > Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > Is there any particular reason why you won't answer, Ralph? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vN6dndBMP6ERfyHKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390637 |
On 8/23/16 8/23/16 6:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Invariant speed of light requires an invariant unit of clock time
No wonder you are so confused! This is false.
In SR, when measuring instruments at rest in a relatively-moving frame, there
are THREE differences when those instruments are projected onto the observing
frame's inertial coordinates:
1) The moving clock is measured to tick more slowly
2) Rulers aligned with the relative motion are measured to be shorter
3) Clocks that are synchronized in the moving frame are not synchronized
(if separated along the direction of relative motion)
These THREE differences conspire TOGETHER to make the vacuum speed of light
invariant. Of course these are really instances of an underlying symmetry in
spacetime; they don't "cause" anything, they merely reflect how geometrical
projections behave.
When you don't understand the subject, it is not possible to discuss it
intelligibly.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b988e41-7b60-477f-b016-27cfda2a1288@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390701 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 7:56:03 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/23/16 8/23/16 6:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Invariant speed of light requires an invariant unit of clock time > > No wonder you are so confused! This is false. > > In SR, when measuring instruments at rest in a relatively-moving frame, there > are THREE differences when those instruments are projected onto the observing > frame's inertial coordinates: > 1) The moving clock is measured to tick more slowly It is not measured.....it is predicted. MEASURED gives the impression that the moving clock is compared to the observer's clock directly. That means that a MEASUREMENT CANNOT BE WRONG. However a prediction can be wrong. In this case of a moving clock, if you compare it with your clock directly you will find that it accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate or faster rate. > 2) Rulers aligned with the relative motion are measured to be shorter Again, there is no such MEASUREMENT....Physicists have no idea what the length contraction equation means so they invented the concept of geometric projection of a moving meter stick is shorter by a factor of 1/gamma. This is designed to retain that there is no material contraction but at the same time claimed that something is contracted. > 3) Clocks that are synchronized in the moving frame are not synchronized > (if separated along the direction of relative motion) That's because a moving clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. > > These THREE differences conspire TOGETHER to make the vacuum speed of light > invariant. Of course these are really instances of an underlying symmetry in > spacetime; they don't "cause" anything, they merely reflect how geometrical > projections behave. No a moving B clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time than the observer A's clock second so they cannot give universal light speed. To avoid this problem physicists invented that the meter stick is 1/299792458 light-second. This circular definition (using light-speed to measure light-speed) guarantees that the speed of light is constant c. > > When you don't understand the subject, it is not possible to discuss it > intelligibly. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fcf7e7e-822f-4175-ac55-4427c3f3ecf5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390849 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 7:56:03 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > 1) The moving clock is measured to tick more slowly > > It is not measured.....it is predicted. MEASURED gives the impression > that the moving clock is compared to the observer's clock directly. Ok. Here, your problem is that you fail to use the appropriate language; you fail to understand the meaning of 'measured'. Yes, to those who do not speak 'SR' , MEASURED gives the ***impression*** of a direct comparison. But MEASURED does not mean a direct comparison!! MEASURED mans to receive the signals & to do a few computations; the result then displayed by the device or computations is the 'measurement'. This is why I try to tell you idiot ken, dont rely on the words used here since you dont understand them. Just use the LT's as they are. Use them on the events in question, or use them on the events 'reception of signal'. > That means that a MEASUREMENT CANNOT BE WRONG. Exactly. > if you compare it with your clock directly We cant do that, since you posited that we are not directly with it. > you will find that it accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate or > faster rate. What we can do is this: wrt our frame (ground, say), we compare the value of the moving clock as it coincides with the series of fixed ground clocks. In every reenactment of this exp, the value(s) on the moving clock was less than the value(s) on the ground clocks, just as predicted by SR. > Physicists have no idea what the length contraction equation means Yes they do. It is you that doesnt understand its meaning. > so they invented the concept of geometric projection No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* people call it that. SR calls it x'=(x-vt)g. Just use that "word". > there is no material contraction That expression does not exist in SR. Stop inventing words that dont belong in SR. You dont like it when Tom does it, yet you do it! Dont be a hypocrite! > but at the same time claimed that something is contracted. What is claimed is that *the value* obtained by the measurement procedure gives a lesser value (by the gamma factor). <rest of confusions snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NIednXSX0d6S2CHKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390593 |
On 8/22/16 8/22/16 3:29 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > [...] the Sun's ECI frame. You've used this phrase several times recently, proving that you don't know what the words you use actually mean. What can you possibly mean by "the sun's earth-centered inertial frame" -- it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Of course not making sense is not unusual for you.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npidg5$uod$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390642 |
On 23/08/16 22:43, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/22/16 8/22/16 3:29 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> [...] the Sun's ECI frame. > > You've used this phrase several times recently, proving that you don't > know what the words you use actually mean. What can you possibly mean by > "the sun's earth-centered inertial frame" -- it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. > > Of course not making sense is not unusual for you.... If you can't work out what I meant you shouldn't be posting here. Call it the HCI if you like. It makes no difference to the fact that light cannot leave its source at two different speeds. > > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iMidnZKTr4lvri7KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390017 |
On 8/15/16 8/15/16 - 2:05 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:05:35 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> I'll describe it that way, and nobody -- > ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- will be >> thinking "Sagnac". > > I think any competent person who reviews your proposal will recognize > immediately that it is demonstrating nothing but the Sagnac effect, Not for the principle of the measurement, just for the INSTRUMENT [#]. [#] see my final two paragraphs below. > i.e., the > fact that light takes different times to traverse the different optical path > lengths in the two directions. Of course light DOES NOT take "different times to traverse the different optical path lengths in the two directions" IN THE ROD FRAME (where the path lengths are NOT "different"). Part of your problem is insufficient precision in words and thought. The whole point of this experiment is to compare two frames. Your Sagnac analysis does not do that. If you did transform to the rod frame, you would have a difference in simultaneity to deal with. As I have explained to several others in this thread, the existence of alternative explanations does NOT affect the application of SR and its RoS to this experiment. IOW: You have no more right to claim "This is purely Sagnac" than I do to say "This is purely RoS" -- there are two alternate ways of analyzing it and both are valid. I will discuss both analyses, treating the Sagnac effect as the instrument-dependent background that it is [#]. >> I have no idea why you think the potential presence of the Sagnac effect in >> the instrument somehow compromises the measurement... > > I sense that we are not communicating at all. Right. You are not listening to what I have been saying. > It almost sounds as if you > think I'm talking about the Sagnac effect due to the rotation of the Earth, > or some other tiny effect. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying > the main time difference that you are measuring, the one that you think shows > the relativity of simultaneity, is actually just due to the change in the > optical path lengths of the rod in the two directions caused by the linear > motion of the rod in the lab frame. You've just taken a fiber optic gyro and > unwound it into a straight rod, which you translate instead of rotate, but > the effect on the optical path lengths in the two directions is identical. I know what you are saying. As I have explained to several others in this thread, the existence of alternative explanations does NOT affect the application of SR and its RoS to this experiment. > You see, I'm not talking about a little noise, I'm saying you are completely > misinterpreting your signal. I am not "misinterpreting". You just have an alternative explanation. But my analysis shows that the Sagnac effect [#] is PURELY AN INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT -- after all, it depends on how I choose to route the fibers, and the optical processing cancels it and leaves RoS. I'm confident that I can explain it such that all readers of my papers will understand this. The sort of linear "Sagnac effect" you keep coming back to is merely a different set of words describing the same underlying phenomenon. In a very real sense it uses a PUN on "Sagnac effect". Ditto for the use of that phrase in the GPS. [#] > The time difference you measure when you have > synchronized the pulses in the lab frame is nothing other than the Sagnac > effect of the translating rod (which, remember, has nothing to do with the > Earth's rotation, etc). We measure this time difference every day for > eastbound and westbound radio signals, synced in the ECI (which is the > equivalent of your "lab frame"). Sure. That 's one explanation (one way of looking at it). Another is to apply SR's RoS. The first analysis (yours) uses the lab frame only, and computes the light speeds relative to the lab, and the light paths relative to the lab, and computes the time difference from that. The second analysis (mine) transforms to the (moving) rod frame, and happens to be much simpler algebraically. They of course obtain the same prediction for the arrival-time between pulses. Applying SR is much harder for the rotating earth than for my experiment; I won't go there. > If you cancel this effect, there will be no > remaining time difference. READ WHAT I WROTE. The optical processing cancels the Sagnac effect and LEAVES the effect due to RoS. The underlying problem is that we use different meanings for "Sagnac effect" in this thread. I use it for an instrument-dependent background, while you use it for the signal, ignoring that its value actually depends on how the fibers are routed. This disconnect in meaning will not be a problem in the papers I write, as it is an artifact of how this newsgroup works. Calling the effect present in the optical conveyor "the Sagnac effect" is different from what most physicists mean by the phrase. Knowledge of those conveyors is not general throughout the community, and my referees may or may not be familiar with them. I will be careful to write for an audience some of whom have heard of them, and some have not. My understanding and recognition of this has evolved during this thread, thanks primarily to you, and my papers will be better for it. The experiment _IS_ worth doing, and it _WILL_ directly demonstrate SR's RoS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f5d516d-bb76-4b5a-ab46-b7b6b75e144c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390118 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 sierpnia 2016 17:40:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 8/15/16 8/15/16 - 2:05 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:05:35 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> I'll describe it that way, and nobody -- > ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- will be > >> thinking "Sagnac". > > > > I think any competent person who reviews your proposal will recognize > > immediately that it is demonstrating nothing but the Sagnac effect, > > Not for the principle of the measurement, just for the INSTRUMENT [#]. > > [#] see my final two paragraphs below. > > > > i.e., the > > fact that light takes different times to traverse the different optical path > > lengths in the two directions. > > Of course light DOES NOT take "different times to traverse the different optical > path lengths in the two directions" IN THE ROD FRAME (where the path lengths are > NOT "different"). Part of your problem is insufficient precision in words and > thought. > > > The whole point of this experiment is to compare two frames. Your Sagnac > analysis does not do that. If you did transform to the rod frame, you would have > a difference in simultaneity to deal with. > > As I have explained to several others in this thread, the existence of > alternative explanations does NOT affect the application of SR and its RoS to > this experiment. > > IOW: You have no more right to claim "This is purely Sagnac" than I do to say > "This is purely RoS" -- there are two alternate ways of analyzing it and both > are valid. I will discuss both analyses, treating the Sagnac effect as the > instrument-dependent background that it is [#]. > > > >> I have no idea why you think the potential presence of the Sagnac effect in > >> the instrument somehow compromises the measurement... > > > > I sense that we are not communicating at all. > > Right. You are not listening to what I have been saying. > > > > It almost sounds as if you > > think I'm talking about the Sagnac effect due to the rotation of the Earth, > > or some other tiny effect. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying > > the main time difference that you are measuring, the one that you think shows > > the relativity of simultaneity, is actually just due to the change in the > > optical path lengths of the rod in the two directions caused by the linear > > motion of the rod in the lab frame. You've just taken a fiber optic gyro and > > unwound it into a straight rod, which you translate instead of rotate, but > > the effect on the optical path lengths in the two directions is identical. > > I know what you are saying. As I have explained to several others in this > thread, the existence of alternative explanations does NOT affect the > application of SR and its RoS to this experiment. > > > > You see, I'm not talking about a little noise, I'm saying you are completely > > misinterpreting your signal. > > I am not "misinterpreting". You just have an alternative explanation. But my > analysis shows that the Sagnac effect [#] is PURELY AN INSTRUMENTATION EFFECT -- > after all, it depends on how I choose to route the fibers, and the optical > processing cancels it and leaves RoS. I'm confident that I can explain it such > that all readers of my papers will understand this. > > The sort of linear "Sagnac effect" you keep coming back to > is merely a different set of words describing the same > underlying phenomenon. In a very real sense it uses a PUN > on "Sagnac effect". Ditto for the use of that phrase in > the GPS. [#] > > > > The time difference you measure when you have > > synchronized the pulses in the lab frame is nothing other than the Sagnac > > effect of the translating rod (which, remember, has nothing to do with the > > Earth's rotation, etc). We measure this time difference every day for > > eastbound and westbound radio signals, synced in the ECI (which is the > > equivalent of your "lab frame"). > > Sure. That 's one explanation (one way of looking at it). Another is to apply > SR's RoS. The first analysis (yours) uses the lab frame only, and computes the > light speeds relative to the lab, and the light paths relative to the lab, and > computes the time difference from that. The second analysis (mine) transforms to > the (moving) rod frame, and happens to be much simpler algebraically. They of > course obtain the same prediction for the arrival-time between pulses. > > Applying SR is much harder for the rotating earth than for > my experiment; I won't go there. > > > > If you cancel this effect, there will be no > > remaining time difference. > > READ WHAT I WROTE. The optical processing cancels the Sagnac effect and LEAVES > the effect due to RoS. > > > > The underlying problem is that we use different meanings for "Sagnac effect" in > this thread. I use it for an instrument-dependent background, while you use it > for the signal, ignoring that its value actually depends on how the fibers are > routed. This disconnect in meaning will not be a problem in the papers I write, > as it is an artifact of how this newsgroup works. > > Calling the effect present in the optical conveyor "the Sagnac effect" is > different from what most physicists mean by the phrase. Knowledge of those > conveyors is not general throughout the community, and my referees may or may > not be familiar with them. I will be careful to write for an audience some of > whom have heard of them, and some have not. My understanding and recognition of > this has evolved during this thread, thanks primarily to you, and my papers will > be better for it. The experiment _IS_ worth doing, and it _WILL_ directly > demonstrate SR's RoS. > > > Tom Roberts You are the most stupid man in this forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52ba88af-800c-4059-a0bd-c1d5fbb99242@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390118 |
On August 16, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/15/16 dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> I think any competent person who reviews your proposal will recognize >> immediately that it is demonstrating nothing but the Sagnac effect, > Calling the effect present in the optical conveyor "the Sagnac effect" > is different from what most physicists mean by the phrase. Knowledge > of those conveyors is not general throughout the community, and my > referees may or may not be familiar with them. I will be careful to > write for an audience some of whom have heard of them, and some have > not. > My understanding and recognition of this has evolved during this > thread, thanks primarily to you, and my papers will > be better for it. What if Mr. Couriann shows up as one of your referees? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f49df05-03ac-4f7a-acdb-5edd052c0d7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390118 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 sierpnia 2016 17:40:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Of course light DOES NOT take "different times to traverse the different optical > path lengths in the two directions" IN THE ROD FRAME (where the path lengths are > NOT "different"). In your imagined rod frame it does not. In the world we inhabit it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ff939fd-8f47-4492-bd82-b05a1a795d8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389885 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 6:33:08 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 11:51 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish > >> instrumentation problems from RoS not being present. > > > > Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would > > just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau > > effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very > > precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc. > > Not true. There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and Wang's (or > any Sagnac measurement). Let me discuss the idealized calculation using pulses > (but this also applies to the real experiment measuring phases). > 1. The light pulses at the two mirrors in my experiment are CONSTRAINED > by the optical processing to be simultaneous in the lab. Wang and > Sagnac have nothing comparable (and couldn't -- no 50% mirrors, no > place to impose simultaneity in the lab). I don't understand.....I thought the fiberoptic from the two ends of the rod continue on to the detector mounted at the center of the rod. So why the need for the 50% mirrors at the ends of the rod? Are you saying that you are comparing the phase difference between the two beams that moving in the free air? > 2. Wang's and Sagnac's fringe shifts are proportional to the area A of > the light path; my delay between pulses is proportional to L, not A. > With L fixed, I could make A arbitrarily large (or small) without > affecting the result (the optical processing would compensate). > > While superficially this might look similar to what Wang did, these differences > make this completely different. Conceptually it is also quite different. In > particular, the optical processing CANCELS the Sagnac effect. > > > > For > > any operationally defined class of coordinate systems we can empirically > > establish whether or not the foliations of constant t are common. But your > > “experiment” does not do this. > > Sure it does. The light pulses at the mirrors are simultaneous in the lab frame > and not in the rod (moving) frame. > > Both frames are inertial to far better accuracy than required > (even though the rod is swinging back-and-forth, the earth > rotates and has gravity, etc.). > > > > [... digression to Tangherlini omitted; what he says is correct] > > > But > > demonstrating the first-order Sagnac effect for the zillionth time doesn’t > > really clarify anything. > > Also true. But that is not what my experiment is doing. This is NOT a Sagnac > interferometer -- the synchronization at the mirrors is an essential difference > that CANCELS the Sagnac effect. > > Applying a Sagnac analysis to my experiment requires assuming the flexing of the > fibers has negligible effect and removing the optical processing and mirrors; > the time difference between pulses depends on the area of the light path [#], > and in general the pulses will not be simultaneous in the lab at the ends of the > rod. In my actual experiment this Sagnac effect merely contributes to the work > the optical processing must do, and the time difference between pulses depends > on the length of the rod between the mirrors (where the simultaneity in the lab > is imposed), not the area. > > [#] Note that the Sagnac effect does not always depend only > on the area and rotation rate -- that applies only for a > rigid light path; flexible fibers require a more careful > analysis. Still, the basic ideas come close.... > > Note that by varying how the fibers are routed (far apart or together as close > as possible), by varying where the mirrors are located on the rod, and by > turning the optical processing on and off, I can vary A and L independently and > observe both of these effects (both are first order in v/c). I can also observe > the effects of fiber flexing by holding the rod fixed and wiggling the middle of > the fibers. > > I can, of course, route the fibers so A=0 with mirrors at the ends of the rod -- > SR's RoS still predicts a nonzero interval between pulses (optical processing > on), but Sagnac does not (processing off). I can then reconfigure so L=0 > (mirrors placed together at the center of the rod) but A is large -- SR's RoS > predicts simultaneous pulses (processing on), but Sagnac predicts nonzero > interval (processing off). > > > Thanks for bringing this up. I had not realized that the optical processing must > also cancel the Sagnac effect; fortunately it does. In some configurations it > could well be larger than the effect of fiber flexing. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd567595-2402-4446-bc31-c8b35817ff0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389885 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:33:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 11:51 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:54:31 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> We will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish > >> instrumentation problems from RoS not being present. > > > > Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus would > > just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with some Fizeau > > effect to account for the index of refraction), which is measured very > > precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, GPS timing, etc. > > Not true. There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and Wang's (or > any Sagnac measurement). Tom, where is your experiment described? I couldn't find it on this thread (which I haven't really read much until now). BTW, as a purely terminological aside, I don't like calling the conveyer belt variation "Sagnac" (see e.g. Tartaglia and Ruggiero [1] or Wang [2]). The fringe shifts in those cases are simply due to _different_ light paths (according to the moving observer). OTOH in the "proper" Sagnac effect the moving observer's relationship to the mirrors remains _constant_ (that's the key), so the light paths are the same (ditto), and the fringe shift appears instead as a result of the lines of simulteneity not being closed loops anymore. Rotation is in fact essential in some way as the observer's acceleration alone is not enough to produce the effect. Consider, for example, an arbitrary fiber cable loop (it can be complicated, even knotted, say). The observer sits with his light emitter/detector at some fixed point along the loop. Now let's say the entire contraption (including the observer) starts moving along some potentially curvilinear trajectory in space. Meaning a rigid (according to the lab, inertial, observer) translation along that curve. Exercise: show that there is no fringe shift in this case. The only difference between this and the standard Sagnac is the lack of rotation. As soon as you start turning while moving along the curve, the light paths will desynchronise. Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only a terminology complaint I have. There are really two different effects here, one due to the simultaneity discrepancy, one due to differing light paths. [1] A. Tartaglia, M. L. Ruggiero, "Sagnac effect and pure geometry", http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005 [2] R. Wang et al., "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222 -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0f7a6e6-6c19-4d1f-afe1-bd7df4e4d5dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390387 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:41:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > Tom, where is your experiment described? I couldn't find it on this thread > (which I haven't really read much until now). https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/zCLxMBNlBQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/jm6XIym9BQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/nvmQ1h02BgAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/c4F2xAE-BgAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/l1ER4PdTBgAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/oGM44rlABwAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/WEhRG8EHAQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/IZIWWA1lAQAJ There is also this drawing of mine, drawn early in the discussion, which gives the gist of the method while being incorrect in some major details. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms/view
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7b38e26-1d2a-4bf2-a512-4c1aff238dc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390387 |
On August 19, JanPB wrote: >>> Like the fiber optic “conveyor belts” of Wang, your proposed apparatus >>> would just demonstrate the first-order Sagnac effect (combined with >>> some Fizeau effect to account for the index of refraction), which is >>> measured very precisely every day in off-the-shelf fiber optic gyros, >>> GPS timing, etc. How does GPS timing demonstrate the Sagnac effect? Somehow related to earth's rotation? >> Not true. There are CRUCIAL differences between this experiment and >> Wang's (or any Sagnac measurement). > as a purely terminological aside, I don't like calling the conveyer > belt variation "Sagnac" (see e.g. Tartaglia and Ruggiero [1] or Wang [2]). > The fringe shifts in those cases are simply due to _different_ > light paths (according to the moving observer). OTOH in the "proper" Sagnac > effect the moving observer's relationship to the mirrors remains _constant_ > (that's the key), so the light paths are the same (ditto), and the fringe > shift appears instead as a result of the lines of simulteneity not being > closed loops anymore. > > Rotation is in fact essential in some way as the observer's acceleration > alone is not enough to produce the effect. Consider, for example, an arbitrary > fiber cable loop (it can be complicated, even knotted, say). The observer > sits with his light emitter/detector at some fixed point along the loop. > Now let's say the entire contraption (including the observer) starts moving > along some potentially curvilinear trajectory in space. Meaning a rigid > (according to the lab, inertial, observer) translation along that curve. > Exercise: show that there is no fringe shift in this case. The only difference > between this and the standard Sagnac is the lack of rotation. As soon > as you start turning while moving along the curve, the light paths will > desynchronise. I studied transmission lines long ago, but they were always straight, we never considered curved waveguides. Curvature implies acceleration, light carries momentum, how does that affect the analysis? Can classical physics handle it, or must one shift to a relativistic model? > Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only > a terminology complaint I have. There are really two different effects here, > one due to the simultaneity discrepancy, one due to differing light paths. > [1] A. Tartaglia, M. L. Ruggiero, "Sagnac effect and pure geometry", > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005 > [2] R. Wang et al., "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time > difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber" > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222 -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7413f4ff-9e29-4a90-b2a5-6ebbd9be1e62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390387 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:41:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only > a terminology complaint I have. Yes. You've expressed pretty much the same sentiments that I had expressed previously to danco. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/z9Cu3Zq0BqA/8QlVqlbhAgAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7351cc1-643f-4fad-9cbb-f709789587c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390392 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:41:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only > > a terminology complaint I have. > > Yes. You've expressed pretty much the same sentiments that I had expressed > previously to danco. > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/z9Cu3Zq0BqA/8QlVqlbhAgAJ Ah, haven't seen your posting. Yes, these are different effects: 1. A complicated fibre path is given with the observer's position fixed along it. The entire contraption is then moved rigidly somehow. (This is the Sagnac, somewhat generalised. The light path in both light directions is the same according to the observer. The fringe shift is then due to the relevant lines of simultaneity not closing up. The rotation is essential as rigid translation, even along a curvilinear path, yields no effect.) 2. A complicated fibre path is given with the observer moving along it (with a constant _speed_, say). (This is what Tartaglia, Wang, etc. call "Sagnac" but IMHO it isn't, it's simply the case of the two light paths being different according to the observer. Rotation is inessential and lines of simultaneity may remain closed (if, say, a portion of the fiber is straight and the observer rides along this portion between the emission and reception.) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E5WdnRKgUu7S1SbKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390387 |
On 8/19/16 8/19/16 1:41 PM, JanPB wrote:
> Tom, where is your experiment described? I couldn't find it on this thread
> (which I haven't really read much until now).
Mostly in the thread with subject "Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus
concept of physics", starting 7/29; also in this thread.
I hesitate to try to post a new description....
> BTW, as a purely terminological aside, I don't like calling the conveyer
> belt variation "Sagnac" [...]
Yes. I have said the same several times.
> Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only
> a terminology complaint I have. There are really two different effects here,
> one due to the simultaneity discrepancy, one due to differing light paths.
Yes. By careful design of experimental configuration, the two effects can be
measured separately. A major part of that is the "optical processing" I have
which can ensure the simultaneity in the lab of optical signals at 50% mirrors
at the ends of my moving rod. The conveyor and Sagnac experiments don't have
that, and its presence makes a definitive change in the type of measurement.
(Several people keep claiming that my experiment does not measure
RoS, it measures Sagnac. They are wrong, and the existence of an
alternate description ("Sagnac") does not affect the way SR
models the experiment. For this measurement the Sagnac effect is
a background, and I treat it as such.)
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17d9306d-b10e-4d7a-99bb-69e423787adf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390582 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:45:42 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/19/16 8/19/16 1:41 PM, JanPB wrote: > > Tom, where is your experiment described? I couldn't find it on this thread > > (which I haven't really read much until now). > > Mostly in the thread with subject "Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus > concept of physics", starting 7/29; also in this thread. > > I hesitate to try to post a new description.... > > > > BTW, as a purely terminological aside, I don't like calling the conveyer > > belt variation "Sagnac" [...] > > Yes. I have said the same several times. > > > > Mathematically of course Wang, Tartaglia, etc. are correct, it's only > > a terminology complaint I have. There are really two different effects here, > > one due to the simultaneity discrepancy, one due to differing light paths. > > Yes. By careful design of experimental configuration, the two effects can be > measured separately. Also, that supposedly more "general" formula Tartaglia and Ruggiero propose (Delta-t = 2vL/c^2) instead of the enclosed-area dependence is simply _wrong_ for cases where the observer happens NOT to follow the path of the light signals. For their "conveyer belt" and the standard circular track version of Sagnac the derivation of this formula obviously works and the latter probably tricked them into assuming it's universal. But a simple drawing of a more general rotating case shows the derivation fails: consider the usual Sagnac rotating platform but with the fibre arranged in some random planar curve instead of the perfect circle. In fact, one can show in that case the general formula for Delta-t involves the area enclosed by the loop (contrary to the claims of supposed irrelevancy of that area). This area comes out from Stokes' theorem so it cannot be simply defined away. It all ultimately follows from the cute factoid: in the ambient Minkowski space the covector field tangent to the worldlines of the platform's material points has a constant exterior derivative (equal to twice the angular speed of rotation(*)) which restricts to zero on the surface of the fibre's world tube (which can be quite irregular for complicated fibre shape). (*)times the volume form in xy. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web