Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Subject | Question For Relativity 'Experts'. |
| Message-ID | <nrvecg$182k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire journey through space?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4h2a0FpqjhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393284 |
On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: > If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular > intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that > the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire > journey through space? > > Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrvoa0$1hfu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393287 |
On 22/09/16 13:42, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: >> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >> journey through space? >> >> > > Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? > > You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using > expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular > intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! VERY FUNNY! > Sylvia. > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4jko0Fe53hU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393291 |
On 22/09/2016 2:56 PM, HGW wrote: > On 22/09/16 13:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >>> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >>> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >>> journey through space? >>> >>> >> >> Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? >> >> You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using >> expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular >> intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? > > HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! VERY FUNNY! > I dare say. So which is it? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns4dhe$v5s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393442 |
On 23/09/16 13:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/09/2016 2:56 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 22/09/16 13:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >>>> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >>>> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >>>> journey through space? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? >>> >>> You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using >>> expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular >>> intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? >> >> HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! VERY FUNNY! >> > > I dare say. > > So which is it? Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a pulse..then repeat that procedure. Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... Bullets certainly don't do it... ...or are you admitting that you are just a very ordinary aetherist like Bodkin? > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4mnonF637kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393547 |
On 24/09/2016 9:23 AM, HGW wrote: > On 23/09/16 13:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/09/2016 2:56 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 22/09/16 13:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 22/09/2016 12:07 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> If an accelerating source emits short pulses of light at regular >>>>> intervals in the same direction, what magical factor will ensure that >>>>> the initial separation between them is maintained during their entire >>>>> journey through space? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why wouldn't they maintain their separation for inertial observers? >>>> >>>> You have an accelerating frame. You need to be careful about using >>>> expressions such as "regular interval" in such contexts. Regular >>>> intervals in the accelerating frame, in or some inertial frame? >>> >>> HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! VERY FUNNY! >>> >> >> I dare say. >> >> So which is it? > > Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a > pulse..then repeat that procedure. That doesn't help. If the interval is constant in the frame of the intermittently accelerating source, then it is not constant in the frame of an inertial observer. > > Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the > same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, there's nothing it needs to do, or know. > > Bullets certainly don't do it... They don't move at the speed of light. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d59048e-f9f1-49ec-8343-4a7527d64eb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393568 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:19:55 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 24/09/2016 9:23 AM, HGW wrote: > > > > Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a > > pulse..then repeat that procedure. > > That doesn't help. If the interval is constant in the frame of the > intermittently accelerating source, then it is not constant in the frame > of an inertial observer. > > > Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the > > same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... > > Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is > also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, > there's nothing it needs to do, or know. > > > > > Bullets certainly don't do it... > > They don't move at the speed of light. > > Sylvia. And some "bullets" (i.e., ionized gold atoms) which move quite close to the speed of light (0.9999c) exhibit relativistic effects. BaThWater has to invent a new reason why that happens over and above why the speed of light itself is invariant. Just on that alone, BaThWater goes down the drain by Occam's razor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns5q8l$nll$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393575 |
On 24/09/16 21:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: ......jesus christ's son, Albert Einstein, came down to earth to make all light move at the same speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns6f1j$1osl$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393581 |
On 9/24/2016 7:07 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 24/09/16 21:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: > ......jesus christ's son, Albert Einstein, came down to earth to make > all light move at the same speed. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke. So you are saying that this science is too advanced for you and so you attribute its claims to magic? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns6lj9$3vk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393622 |
On 25/09/16 04:01, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/24/2016 7:07 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 24/09/16 21:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> ......jesus christ's son, Albert Einstein, came down to earth to make >> all light move at the same speed. > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." > - Arthur C. Clarke. > > So you are saying that this science is too advanced for you and so you > attribute its claims to magic? Obviously you dingleberries rely on magic. How else would one light pulse know what another one was doing a million miles away? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns6o2b$7et$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393639 |
On 9/24/2016 2:53 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/09/16 04:01, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/24/2016 7:07 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 24/09/16 21:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> ......jesus christ's son, Albert Einstein, came down to earth to make >>> all light move at the same speed. >> >> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." >> - Arthur C. Clarke. >> >> So you are saying that this science is too advanced for you and so you >> attribute its claims to magic? > > Obviously you dingleberries rely on magic. How else would one light > pulse know what another one was doing a million miles away? It doesn't have to. The speed is with respect to the observer's reference frame, not the the other photon. >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fPqdnZNgedkte3vKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393639 |
On 9/24/16 9/24/16 2:53 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Obviously you [...] rely on magic. How else would one light pulse know > what another one was doing a million miles away? How silly. You seem to think light pulses are sentient beings. Your question is similar to this: If you emit two light pulses in the same direction from the same source 10 seconds apart, how do two light pulses know to go in the same direction when they are a million miles apart? The answer, of course, is that this question is malformed, and this is really due to the way they were emitted, not due to anything in the light pulses themselves. In SR, the "direction" of a light pulse (in vacuum) includes not only its direction in 3-space, but also its direction in 4-d spacetime. A light pulse in vacuum must follow a null geodesic, and its direction in spacetime dictates that it moves with speed c relative to any inertial frame. This is an inherent geometrical property of null geodesics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns7v89$1mkb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393654 |
On 25/09/16 06:48, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/24/16 9/24/16 2:53 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Obviously you [...] rely on magic. How else would one light pulse know >> what another one was doing a million miles away? > > How silly. You seem to think light pulses are sentient beings. > > Your question is similar to this: If you emit two light pulses in the > same direction from the same source 10 seconds apart, how do two light > pulses know to go in the same direction when they are a million miles > apart? > > The answer, of course, is that this question is malformed, and this is > really due to the way they were emitted, not due to anything in the > light pulses themselves. > > In SR, the "direction" of a light pulse (in vacuum) includes not only > its direction in 3-space, but also its direction in 4-d spacetime. A > light pulse in vacuum must follow a null geodesic, and its direction in > spacetime dictates that it moves with speed c relative to any inertial > frame. This is an inherent geometrical property of null geodesics. Poor old Tom, he doesn't know that his version of spacetime was created on the assumption that light speed is always constant. So he doesn't realize that statements like the one he just made is nothing but an excellent example of circular logic. > > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns5q37$nee$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393568 |
On 24/09/16 17:19, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/09/2016 9:23 AM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> I dare say. >>> >>> So which is it? >> >> Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a >> pulse..then repeat that procedure. > > That doesn't help. If the interval is constant in the frame of the > intermittently accelerating source, then it is not constant in the frame > of an inertial observer. > >> >> Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the >> same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... > > Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is > also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, > there's nothing it needs to do, or know. There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light source and some photons. If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... then I can only assume you don't have one. > >> Bullets certainly don't do it... > > They don't move at the speed of light. > > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4n8u5Fa3v3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393580 |
On 24/09/2016 10:04 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 24/09/16 17:19, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 24/09/2016 9:23 AM, HGW wrote: > >>>> >>>> I dare say. >>>> >>>> So which is it? >>> >>> Let the source accelerate but stop accelerating briefly as it emits a >>> pulse..then repeat that procedure. >> >> That doesn't help. If the interval is constant in the frame of the >> intermittently accelerating source, then it is not constant in the frame >> of an inertial observer. >> >>> >>> Can your pea brain explain why each pulse should know how move at the >>> same speed as the previous one?..which is apparently what you believe... >> >> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is >> also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, >> there's nothing it needs to do, or know. > > There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light > source and some photons. > > If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly > what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... > then I can only assume you don't have one. It does move at c relative to its source. But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition). Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns6moq$6c2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393583 |
On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/09/2016 10:04 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: . >>> >>> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one observer is >>> also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, >>> there's nothing it needs to do, or know. >> >> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light >> source and some photons. >> >> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly >> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... >> then I can only assume you don't have one. > > It does move at c relative to its source. > > But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, > because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition). Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. > Sylvia. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns6o59$7et$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393643 |
On 9/24/2016 3:13 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive > the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way > the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them > subsequently travels. He doesn't, but the reference frame does. The observer is a long way away, but the reference frame is right there. > To claim that the chance existence of his obscure > frame of reference What do you find obscure about it? It's there just as much as the source and the photon are. > is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses > is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. Nope. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4op52Flb34U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393643 |
On 25/09/2016 6:13 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 24/09/2016 10:04 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > . >>>> >>>> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one >>>> observer is >>>> also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, >>>> there's nothing it needs to do, or know. >>> >>> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light >>> source and some photons. >>> >>> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly >>> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... >>> then I can only assume you don't have one. >> >> It does move at c relative to its source. >> >> But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, >> because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition). > > Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive > the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way > the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them > subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure > frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses > is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. > > Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer. You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source. I agree. What's the next step in your argument? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4u4n4Fuc5fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393679 |
On 25/09/2016 11:55 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/09/2016 6:13 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 24/09/2016 10:04 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> . >>>>> >>>>> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one >>>>> observer is >>>>> also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers, >>>>> there's nothing it needs to do, or know. >>>> >>>> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating >>>> light >>>> source and some photons. >>>> >>>> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly >>>> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source.... >>>> then I can only assume you don't have one. >>> >>> It does move at c relative to its source. >>> >>> But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, >>> because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple >>> addition). >> >> Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive >> the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way >> the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them >> subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure >> frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses >> is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. >> >> > > Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer. > > You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source. > > I agree. > > What's the next step in your argument? > > Sylvia. > Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened last time? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsdhb8$krf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393942 |
On 27/09/16 12:43, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/09/2016 11:55 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive >>> the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way >>> the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them >>> subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure >>> frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses >>> is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. >>> >>> >> >> Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer. >> >> You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source. >> >> I agree. >> >> What's the next step in your argument? >> >> Sylvia. >> > > Don't want to do a step by step argument? Worried about what happened > last time? It is obvious what happens. The later pulses move towards the earlier ones....just as it happens with bullets... > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web