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 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4v6p6F7k40U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393960 |
On 27/09/2016 8:23 PM, HGW wrote: > 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... Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nseldr$op5$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393980 |
On 27/09/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> 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... > > Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote space. It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could work that out. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e50l8pFihdkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394046 |
On 28/09/2016 6:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 27/09/16 22:25, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> 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... >> >> Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? > > Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote space. > It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could work > that out. > Yes, with bullets that don't travel at the speed of light, it's true. Now, given that pulses of light do travel at the speed of light, what is your argument in detail? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsfg9r$1seb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394074 |
On 28/09/16 11:38, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/09/2016 6:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>>> 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... >>> >>> Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? >> >> Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote space. >> It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could work >> that out. >> > > Yes, with bullets that don't travel at the speed of light, it's true. > > Now, given that pulses of light do travel at the speed of light, what is > your argument in detail? The speed of light relative to the source is indeed c. Since the source is accelerating, no two pulses will move at the same speed. What could possibly make them do otherwise? > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e5124eFl6uaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394085 |
On 28/09/2016 2:18 PM, HGW wrote: > On 28/09/16 11:38, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/09/2016 6:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>>>> 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... >>>> >>>> Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? >>> >>> Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote >>> space. >>> It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could work >>> that out. >>> >> >> Yes, with bullets that don't travel at the speed of light, it's true. >> >> Now, given that pulses of light do travel at the speed of light, what is >> your argument in detail? > > The speed of light relative to the source is indeed c. Since the source > is accelerating, no two pulses will move at the same speed. What could > possibly make them do otherwise? Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is also moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does so relative to anything else. So from the perspective of the observer, both pulses are moving at c, and do not get closer together. Also, since the first pulse is moving at c relative to the observer, it is moving at c relative to the source even after the source has accelerated. So from the perspective of the source, both pulses are moving at c, and do not get closer together. This is a manifestation of the way velocities compose in relativity; any velocity composed with c just gives c again. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsgs7f$4dh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394089 |
On 28/09/16 15:18, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/09/2016 2:18 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 28/09/16 11:38, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 28/09/2016 6:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >>>>>>> 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... >>>>> >>>>> Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? >>>> >>>> Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote >>>> space. >>>> It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could work >>>> that out. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, with bullets that don't travel at the speed of light, it's true. >>> >>> Now, given that pulses of light do travel at the speed of light, what is >>> your argument in detail? >> >> The speed of light relative to the source is indeed c. Since the source >> is accelerating, no two pulses will move at the same speed. What could >> possibly make them do otherwise? > > Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. > The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a > second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. > > Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is also > moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does > so relative to anything else. If you want to believe that there is little hope for you....I suggest you should start looking for the aether that you seem to believe exists. > So from the perspective of the observer, both pulses are moving at c, > and do not get closer together. > Also, since the first pulse is moving at c relative to the observer, it > is moving at c relative to the source even after the source has > accelerated. So from the perspective of the source, both pulses are > moving at c, and do not get closer together. You are quoting LET. I'm glad you now realize that SR is the same theory. I have been telling everyone that for years. Both theories depend on the existence of an absolute light carrying medium...and there is none. > This is a manifestation of the way velocities compose in relativity; any > velocity composed with c just gives c again. I showed how that was just a maths trick...pure circular logic. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e531r3F5qe5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394130 |
On 29/09/2016 2:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 28/09/16 15:18, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/09/2016 2:18 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On 28/09/16 11:38, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/09/2016 6:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> 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... >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is it obvious - what's your argument in detail? >>>>> >>>>> Just try firing bullets from an accelerating machine gun in remote >>>>> space. >>>>> It is quite obvious what will happen to them. Even a 2yo kid could >>>>> work >>>>> that out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, with bullets that don't travel at the speed of light, it's true. >>>> >>>> Now, given that pulses of light do travel at the speed of light, >>>> what is >>>> your argument in detail? >>> >>> The speed of light relative to the source is indeed c. Since the source >>> is accelerating, no two pulses will move at the same speed. What could >>> possibly make them do otherwise? >> >> Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. >> The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a >> second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. >> >> Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is also >> moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does >> so relative to anything else. > > If you want to believe that there is little hope for you....I suggest > you should start looking for the aether that you seem to believe exists. It's an experimental result that the speed of light is a constant, and the same for all observers. It's counter-intuitive and you may not like it, but that's the reality we live with. Einstein shows mathematically how space and time are related so as to produce this result, and the math describes the results of your thought experiment so as to avoid the pulses catching up with each other. Your attempts to prove that relativity is wrong always amount to assuming it is first. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsiqns$u9f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394194 |
On 29/09/16 09:25, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/09/2016 2:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. >>> The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a >>> second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. >>> >>> Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is also >>> moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does >>> so relative to anything else. >> >> If you want to believe that there is little hope for you....I suggest >> you should start looking for the aether that you seem to believe exists. > > It's an experimental result that the speed of light is a constant, and > the same for all observers. Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. It's counter-intuitive and you may not like > it, but that's the reality we live with. The reality is that TWLS has been measured many times and found to have a constant value....exactly as BaTh predicts. > Einstein shows mathematically how space and time are related so as to > produce this result, and the math describes the results of your thought > experiment so as to avoid the pulses catching up with each other. Time is not related to space or movement in any way. > Your attempts to prove that relativity is wrong always amount to > assuming it is first. SR is consistent with its second postulate...and that is wrong. Like your colleagues, you keep repeating aspects of the theory's consistency as though completely oblivious to the fact that it is all based on a fallacy.. > Sylvia. > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e55n58FpahcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394239 |
On 29/09/2016 8:34 PM, HGW wrote: > On 29/09/16 09:25, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 29/09/2016 2:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>>> >>>> Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. >>>> The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a >>>> second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. >>>> >>>> Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is >>>> also >>>> moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does >>>> so relative to anything else. >>> >>> If you want to believe that there is little hope for you....I suggest >>> you should start looking for the aether that you seem to believe exists. >> >> It's an experimental result that the speed of light is a constant, and >> the same for all observers. > > Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible > experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. As has been explained to you ad-nauseam, the one way light speed cannot be measured without assuming a particular model for space-time. Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one can postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That leads to the theory of special relativity, which is found to be consistent with all experiments. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9069d8ed-f80c-4ead-93f6-20c7bfee494c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394303 |
W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 01:41:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 29/09/2016 8:34 PM, HGW wrote: > > On 29/09/16 09:25, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 29/09/2016 2:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> Suppose you have an observer initially at rest relative to the source. > >>>> The sources emits a pulse, then accelerates for a while and emits a > >>>> second pulse. Meanwhile the observer remains accelerated. > >>>> > >>>> Since the second pulse is moving at c relative to the source, it is > >>>> also > >>>> moving at c relative to the observer, because anything moving a c does > >>>> so relative to anything else. > >>> > >>> If you want to believe that there is little hope for you....I suggest > >>> you should start looking for the aether that you seem to believe exists. > >> > >> It's an experimental result that the speed of light is a constant, and > >> the same for all observers. > > > > Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible > > experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. > > As has been explained to you ad-nauseam, the one way light speed cannot > be measured without assuming a particular model for space-time. > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one > can postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That > leads to the theory of special relativity, which is found to be > consistent with all experiments. No, it is not. Experiments shows, that time (as defined by Your Great Guru himself) is galilean, with the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8efbff2-8b10-4c03-875f-b4762e5afef3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394347 |
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:07:08 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 01:41:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one > > can postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That > > leads to the theory of special relativity, which is found to be > > consistent with all experiments. > > No, it is not. Experiments shows, that time (as defined > by Your Great Guru himself) is galilean, with the precision > of an acceptable error. A lie, as expected from a twisted, cancerous liar: http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html And it's true in a gravitational field, to: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale The stupid, ignorant, dishonest troll is a disgrace to humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <741179e6-e94a-4630-bd49-3df91b1762a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394355 |
W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 13:10:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:07:08 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 01:41:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > > > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one > > > can postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That > > > leads to the theory of special relativity, which is found to be > > > consistent with all experiments. > > > > No, it is not. Experiments shows, that time (as defined > > by Your Great Guru himself) is galilean, with the precision > > of an acceptable error. > > A lie, as expected from a twisted, cancerous liar: Sad truth. > http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html Unfortunately, your idiot guru didn't define time as a relationship to any muons. He defined it as - time is what clocks indicate. Thus, the link is totally irrelevant. And, as we can see at GPS that real clocks indicate t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error) - time (as defined by your idiot guru) is galilean. > > And it's true in a gravitational field, to: > > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > The stupid, ignorant, dishonest troll is a disgrace to humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <arWdnWOuB6jdNHPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394303 |
On 9/29/16 9/29/16 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/09/2016 8:34 PM, HGW wrote: >> Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible >> experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. > > As has been explained to you ad-nauseam, the one way light speed cannot be > measured without assuming a particular model for space-time. > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one can > postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That leads to the > theory of special relativity, which is found to be consistent with all experiments. More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. But Wilson lives in his fantasy world and ignores experiments in the real world. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c1833fd-df86-4f96-8192-701c2801918a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394415 |
W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 20:04:54 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 9/29/16 9/29/16 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 29/09/2016 8:34 PM, HGW wrote: > >> Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible > >> experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. > > > > As has been explained to you ad-nauseam, the one way light speed cannot be > > measured without assuming a particular model for space-time. > > > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one can > > postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That leads to the > > theory of special relativity, which is found to be consistent with all experiments. > > More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving > sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent > with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. You are stupid. The wan-way speed measurement results in the c value in the local conditions, because you use two local clocks, which are sync by the Einstein procedure, which implies explicityly c = inv. > But Wilson lives in his fantasy world and ignores experiments in the real world. You are still much more fantastic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89f6e7d9-bf82-4210-8429-01d2b83a5a59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394415 |
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:04:54 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/29/16 9/29/16 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 29/09/2016 8:34 PM, HGW wrote: > >> Absolute crap. You are just preaching your religion....No credible > >> experiment has shown that OWLS from a moving source is c. > > > > As has been explained to you ad-nauseam, the one way light speed cannot be > > measured without assuming a particular model for space-time. > > > > Taking one's cue from the constancy found in two way experiments, one can > > postulate that the speed is constant in all circumstances. That leads to the > > theory of special relativity, which is found to be consistent with all experiments. > > More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving > sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent > with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > > But Wilson lives in his fantasy world and ignores experiments in the real world. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp7mk$6cr$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394483 |
On 10/1/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. That's why you should read more than this newsgroup, Ken. You get confusing information. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42fff799-d857-4850-8b9a-37e2f6468933@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394529 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:52:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/1/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > > That's why you should read more than this newsgroup, Ken. You get > confusing information. > So are you saying that Tom Roberts never said that OWLS was never been measured directly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstrc3$omf$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394602 |
On 10/2/2016 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:52:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/1/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. >> >> That's why you should read more than this newsgroup, Ken. You get >> confusing information. >> > > So are you saying that Tom Roberts never said that OWLS was never been measured directly? > I'm saying it doesn't matter WHAT he said, because BOOKS are the source for what science has done or what relativity says, not Tom Roberts. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0dqdnbtM-rODCG3KnZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394483 |
On 10/1/16 10/1/16 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 2:04:54 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> More to the point, the one-way speed of light has been MEASURED for many moving >> sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are inconsistent >> with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. > > But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large errorbars, and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the clocks are synchronized. Such measurements cannot distinguish among competing theories, so there's little point in measuring OWLS. But measuring the speed of light emitted from a moving source can distinguish among some theories, and for fast sources (v ~ 0.9 c) the errorbars don't need to be very small. For instance, they refute Wilson's fantasies, even though he chooses to remain ignorant and ignore this fact. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsqbob$1f3e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394561 |
On 02/10/16 16:03, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/1/16 10/1/16 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> sources in the lab, and they are all consistent with c, and are >>> inconsistent >>> with c+v, some OUTRAGEOUSLY so. >> >> But in the past you said that the OWLS never been measured directly. > > Nope. But I have said many times that measurements of OWLS have large > errorbars, and that the value they measure depends DIRECTLY on how the > clocks are synchronized. Such measurements cannot distinguish among > competing theories, so there's little point in measuring OWLS. But > measuring the speed of light emitted from a moving source can > distinguish among some theories, and for fast sources (v ~ 0.9 c) the > errorbars don't need to be very small. For instance, they refute > Wilson's fantasies, even though he chooses to remain ignorant and ignore > this fact. AHAHHAHHAHHA! once again Tom runs for cover behind his famous 'error bars'.. > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web