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 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq4nk6$125f$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391218 |
On 30/08/16 16:38, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 29.08.2016 07:15, schrieb JanPB: > > http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light -to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ > > Much of this article is in agreement with my own findings, although I am way ahead of these people already. I must email them information that will fill in some of their gaps. > I personally don't think, that light is carried by particles. Light is initially emitted as particles and the PE effect suggests they always retain some particulate properties. However it is inconceivable that a minuscule quantum ejected from a field will retain its original form as it travels. Remember light spends almost all of its lifetime in transit and we only research it during the instants of its creation and annihilation. My current view is that individual quanta coalesce in the vacuum of space and form broad wavefronts that in some ways, resemble waves in a medium. That 'medium' is actually created by the EM radiation itself so that the universe resembles a very low density and turbulent fluid (Haether....Henry's aether) Fields are made of Haether. (or...'Haether is made of fields') Where there are fields, there is Haether...and its effect on passing light is determined by its density, which of course is very close to zero throughout most of space. Around large masses, particularly those which produce EM radiation, Haether is much denser and light speed unification occurs at a rapid rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq4prq$rcr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391251 |
On 30.08.2016 21:43, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Light is initially emitted as particles and the PE effect suggests they > always retain some particulate properties. However it is inconceivable > that a minuscule quantum ejected from a field will retain its original > form as it travels. Remember light spends almost all of its lifetime in > transit and we only research it during the instants of its creation and > annihilation. > My current view is that individual quanta coalesce in the vacuum of > space and form broad wavefronts that in some ways, resemble waves in a > medium. That 'medium' is actually created by the EM radiation itself so > that the universe resembles a very low density and turbulent fluid > (Haether....Henry's aether) > Fields are made of Haether. (or...'Haether is made of fields') Where > there are fields, there is Haether...and its effect on passing light is > determined by its density, which of course is very close to zero > throughout most of space. Around large masses, particularly those which > produce EM radiation, Haether is much denser and light speed unification > occurs at a rapid rate. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq4qr2$1871$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391253 |
On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: ...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many other people agree with what I have been telling him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq619c$322$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #391254 |
On 30.08.2016 22:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > ...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many > other people agree with what I have been telling him. How is the weather down under in Wonderland, Ralph? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq8t81$117v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391283 |
On 31/08/16 17:34, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.08.2016 22:38, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 31/08/16 06:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> ...absolutely nothing, due to demoralization after discovering that many >> other people agree with what I have been telling him. > > How is the weather down under in Wonderland, Henry? :-D Weather is fine...sunny with rain on the way....Einstein's future is not so bright.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7aeaf3e-d0b4-414c-9d05-af7537fb3c24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389521 |
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > I don't think you can claim status of student without paying tuition. :-) (I won't comment on that) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0f7b326-83b7-4140-8046-65d2afd13a38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389350 |
On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:54:31 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The problems are as follows: > > These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings. > > > > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of > > the OWLS in the rod frame. > > But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but no > sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod frame. > > Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one > clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS. > You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no > sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a > measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod > frame using clocks synchronized like my signals. > (CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.) But your experiments have no clock....so your argument of using CST/EST clocks is irrelevant. You compare the phase difference (or fringe shift) between the two light fronts from the ends of the rod. That means that you are measuring the isotropy or anistropy between the two light fronts. If your result was anisotropy then you will have found RoS. But that will also mean that the OWLS is not isotropic e in the rod frame as posited by the P2. > > > > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > > Not necessarily. It could be that there is a problem in instrumentation or > technique. But fortunately, we will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to > distinguish instrumentation problems from RoS not being present. Sound like that if you don't get RoS with actual results then you can use errorbars to get RoS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no7uco$1gm3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389384 |
On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > But your experiments have no clock. Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8201e183-ac32-4486-be7e-02093435b1fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389398 |
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > > But your experiments have no clock. > > Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal. I didn't see any clocks in his proposal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nocl17$383$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389571 |
On 8/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> But your experiments have no clock. >> >> Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal. > > I didn't see any clocks in his proposal. > That's because you can't read. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7b1c065-1945-4ded-ab04-7551dce3aae0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389573 |
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:15:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> But your experiments have no clock. > >> > >> Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal. > > > > I didn't see any clocks in his proposal. > > > > That's because you can't read. > It is you who can't read......Tom was talking about calculating the time from the ends of the rod to the center.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nofc1l$1tso$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389695 |
On 8/10/2016 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:15:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/9/2016 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:24:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> But your experiments have no clock. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. You didn't read the proposal. >>> >>> I didn't see any clocks in his proposal. >>> >> >> That's because you can't read. >> > > It is you who can't read......Tom was talking about calculating the time from > the ends of the rod to the center. > Wrong place in the discussion. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <baaf3c28-64ad-4533-b7d7-24eb5809fb8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389350 |
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. The first-order Sagnac effect doesn’t have much value for testing special relativity, since the same effect is consistent with (for example) pre-Lorentzian stationary ether theories. It certainly does not constitute an unambiguous detection of the “relativity of simultaneity” (RoS) because that’s a coordinate-dependent concept (as is simultaneity itself), i.e., RoS is an attribute of some classes of coordinate systems and not of others. 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. (An example of an “experiment” that does this is the demonstrations of the increasing inertia of high-speed particles in accelerators, which directly implies RoS for standard inertial coordinate systems.) > No sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like > that in the rod frame. If someone chooses to define a class of coordinate systems that all share the same temporal foliations, they are free to do so... but then they must realize that they are not dealing with coordinates in terms of which inertia is both homogeneous and isotropic. For example, coordinate systems related by “Tangherlini transformations” do not exhibit isotropic inertia, so they are not inertial coordinate systems in the full sense (i.e., the equations of Newtonian mechanics do not hold good to the first order in terms of such coordinates). Of course, even though we can measure RoS (and the one-way speed of light) in terms of inertial coordinates, nothing can ever demonstrate that inertial coordinate systems are the “true” measures of space and time, since that is a metaphysical assertion. We can only demonstrate phenomena described in terms of operationally-defined coordinate systems, and explain why sensible people prefer some coordinate systems over others. But demonstrating the first-order Sagnac effect for the zillionth time doesn’t really clarify anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nol0cp$496$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389856 |
On 8/12/2016 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. The first-order Sagnac effect doesn’t have much > value for testing special relativity, since the same effect is consistent with (for example) > pre-Lorentzian stationary ether theories. It certainly does not constitute an unambiguous > detection of the “relativity of simultaneity” (RoS) because that’s a coordinate-dependent > concept (as is simultaneity itself), i.e., RoS is an attribute of some classes of coordinate > systems and not of others. 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. (An example of an “experiment” that does this is the > demonstrations of the increasing inertia of high-speed particles in accelerators, which > directly implies RoS for standard inertial coordinate systems.) > >> No sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like >> that in the rod frame. > > If someone chooses to define a class of coordinate systems that all share the same temporal > foliations, they are free to do so... but then they must realize that they are not dealing > with coordinates in terms of which inertia is both homogeneous and isotropic. For example, > coordinate systems related by “Tangherlini transformations” do not exhibit isotropic inertia, > so they are not inertial coordinate systems in the full sense (i.e., the equations of Newtonian > mechanics do not hold good to the first order in terms of such coordinates). Of course, even > though we can measure RoS (and the one-way speed of light) in terms of inertial coordinates, > nothing can ever demonstrate that inertial coordinate systems are the “true” measures of space > and time, since that is a metaphysical assertion. We can only demonstrate phenomena described > in terms of operationally-defined coordinate systems, and explain why sensible people prefer > some coordinate systems over others. But demonstrating the first-order Sagnac effect for the > zillionth time doesn’t really clarify anything. > Interesting comment. I think actually Tom has already made the stipulation that all he is doing is testing a particular implication of the choice of coordinates that are related by the Lorentz transformations, and doing it in as straightforward and as direct a way as he can. I think it's legitimate to do that, because (as you say) even time dilation or increase of inertia with speed are also evidence in support of Lorentz invariance, which in turn requires RoS, but physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway. I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that other synchronization schemes are of course possible, but that one ends up with other esthetically undesirable effects, such as anisotropic inertia or the appearance of frame-dependent force terms or other variations of the loss of principle of relativity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0e21115-ec22-4b51-880e-f9eed866e007@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389857 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway. Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, which is consistent both with theories that are Lorentz invariant and with theories that are not. (Lorentz invariance is a second-order effect.) This can be done much more cheaply and with much greater precision by just buying an off-the-shelf fiber optic gyro. Also, simple optical demonstrations don’t establish relatively moving systems of coordinates in which inertia is isotropic, so they can’t be said to demonstrate RoS for such systems. Of course, the Sagnac effect rules out some emission theories, but no one espouses those anyway. Admittedly, if fiber optic gyros suddenly stopped working tomorrow, it would be a problem for special relativity, but that would be the least of our worries. > time dilation or increase of inertia with speed are also evidence in > support of Lorentz invariance...” Yes, those are both second-order effects, neither of which is demonstrated in Tom’s experiment. > which in turn requires RoS To avoid confusion, it’s best to be careful... Lorentz invariance “requires RoS” only for the class of coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic, but not for general classes of coordinate systems. > I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that other synchronization > schemes are of course possible, but that one ends up with other > esthetically undesirable effects, such as anisotropic inertia or the > appearance of frame-dependent force terms or other variations of the > loss of principle of relativity. I’m not sure what “variations of the loss of principle of relativity” means. It’s true that neither the (special) principle of relativity nor the invariance of light speed apply to the behavior of phenomena described in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems. They apply only to the descriptions of phenomena in terms of coordinates "in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (i.e., to the first approximation)", meaning standard inertial coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. But the first-order Sagnac effect doesn't really demonstrate any of this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QLadnU82xsVU9zPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389860 |
On 8/12/16 8/12/16 1:37 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway. > > Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just > demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, [...] Not true. See my recent response to your earlier post on this. The optical processing I use cancels the Sagnac effect (as well as effects due to fiber flexing and temperature variations). > (Lorentz invariance is a second-order effect.) Some aspects are, some aren't. RoS is first-order in v/c. > Also, simple optical demonstrations don’t > establish relatively moving systems of coordinates in which inertia is > isotropic, so they can’t be said to demonstrate RoS for such systems. Nonsense! In my experiment we can easily establish that both the lab frame and the rod frame are inertial to vastly better accuracy than the measurement. It is not intended to demonstrate "inertia is isotropic", but it would be perverse to think that doesn't apply to (locally) inertial frames like these. > To avoid confusion, it’s best to be careful... Lorentz invariance “requires > RoS” only for the class of coordinate systems in which inertia is > homogeneous and isotropic, but not for general classes of coordinate > systems. Yes. But inertial frames qualify, and the frames in my experiment are inertial for the purposes of the measurement. That is, one asks the question "If we use the equations of SR specific to inertial frames for the actual frames of this experiment, how much error is introduced?", and the answer is "vastly less than the resolution of the measurements". > It’s true that neither the (special) principle of relativity nor the > invariance of light speed apply to the behavior of phenomena described in > terms of arbitrary coordinate systems. This depends in detail on what you mean. Using coordinates x' which does not correspond to length, and/or t' which does not correspond to time intervals, OF COURSE dx'/dt' for light won't equal c. But if spacetime curvature can be neglected, and one applies the metric to convert dx' to distance and dt' to time interval, then distance/time will equal c (in vacuum). I'm not sure how one could apply the PoR to non-inertial coordinates, as it internally limits itself to inertial frames. > They apply only to the descriptions > of phenomena in terms of coordinates "in which the equations of Newtonian > mechanics hold good (i.e., to the first approximation)", meaning standard > inertial coordinate systems in which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. > But the first-order Sagnac effect doesn't really demonstrate any of this. Yes. Not only is "inertia" isotropic (whatever that means -- "inertia" is ambiguous), also space is homogeneous and isotropic, and time is homogeneous. These last seem to me to be more fundamental. And I am not "demonstrating Sagnac", I am CANCELLING it and demonstrating RoS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20138267-58a5-4d9f-97bb-91419bfac09e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389898 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/12/16 8/12/16 1:37 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Physicists continue to do various tests of Lorentz invariance anyway. > > > > Sure, but Tom’s experiment isn’t testing Lorentz invariance, it's just > > demonstrating (for the zillionth time) the first-order Sagnac effect, [...] > > Not true. See my recent response to your earlier post on this. The optical > processing I use cancels the Sagnac effect (as well as effects due to fiber > flexing and temperature variations). I don't believe that you are explaining the unique aspects of your proposed experiment properly. The Sagnac effect has been subject to nearly a century of popular misinterpretation. In textbooks, one almost invariably sees the Sagnac effect explained in terms of rotating platforms, and one finds frequent reference to the magnitude of the effect as being "dependent" on the enclosed area. For example, the fact that the MMX is not sensitive to rotation is often explained as due to the fact that the MMX light path does not enclose an area. There has long been a misunderstanding that the Sagnac effect is due to rotation, i.e. non-inertial motion. The fiber conveyor form of the Sagnac apparatus demonstrates that there is in reality no dependence of the magnitude of the Sagnac effect on the enclosed area or on rotation. Rather, the total time advance/delay experienced by a beam is equal to the cumulative time advances/delays along the entire length of fiber, regardless of rotation or geometry. In response to the publication of the fiber conveyor experiment, Tartaglia wrote: "In the present paper...we want to show that the real ingredients of the Sagnac effect are two: a) a closed circuit followed by light in opposite directions; b) a relative (even inertial) motion of the emitter/receiver with respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light." https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005 A significant aspect of your demonstration will be that even the generalized statement provided by Tartaglia is wrong. In reality, a) neither a closed circuit of light, nor b) a relative motion of the emitter/receiver with respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light are necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26cbb0d4-864f-43e2-b8b3-f89bb8d853c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389936 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 3:16:03 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > In response to the publication of the fiber conveyor experiment, Tartaglia > wrote: "In the present paper...we want to show that the real ingredients of > the Sagnac effect are two: a) a closed circuit followed by light in opposite > directions; b) a relative (even inertial) motion of the emitter/receiver > with respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light." > https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401005 It is rather difficult to find non-fringe papers dealing with the fiber conveyor. This one reaches rather similar conclusions as the Tartaglia paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403111 > A significant aspect of your demonstration will be that even the generalized > statement provided by Tartaglia is wrong. In reality, a) neither a closed > circuit of light, nor b) a relative motion of the emitter/receiver with > respect to the physical apparatus supporting the closed path of light are > necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 03:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ddab3fc-d192-4caa-ae59-e02448662fcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389857 |
W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 19:18:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > I've always understood (perhaps incorrectly) that other synchronization > schemes are of course possible, but that one ends up with other > esthetically undesirable effects, such as GPS working instead being symmetrical. What a loss!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oNKdnbhEDbQA0zPKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389856 |
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).
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]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web