Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614301 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 66 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-03 10:24 +1000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 17:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-02 19:43 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:31 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:50 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 01:01 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 09:52 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:04 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:28 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 22:56 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 10:36 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1d147b5-40e8-49e5-86e3-60e67115a402n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614368 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:17:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:22:09 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > > > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > > Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on > > Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he > > believed what the crackpots say? > > > > -- > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > He had an honest moment. I wish Pentcho Valev would comment to support his understanding of this Feynman quote. In any case, none of the comments here have persuaded me of the second postulate lunacy. All I hear from relativists is appeal to authority and misconstruing experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kggj00F88a7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614371 |
On 7/3/2023 1:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:17:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:22:09 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>> On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>> >>>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means >>>> its velocity is not independent of that of the source. >>> Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on >>> Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he >>> believed what the crackpots say? >>> >>> -- >>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >> He had an honest moment. > I wish Pentcho Valev would comment to support his understanding of this Feynman quote. In any case, none of the comments here have persuaded me of the second postulate lunacy. > All I hear from relativists is appeal to authority and misconstruing experiments. Mirror mirror on the wall...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7ve7c$3q5p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614371 |
On 7/3/2023 2:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > I wish Pentcho Valev would comment to support his understanding of this Feynman quote. Pentcho? WTF? Pentcho is even nutter than nearly every other crackpot here! He even gives references which when checked, say the exact opposite of what he claims and supports relativity. You want that as your support? > In any case, none of the comments here have persuaded me of the second postulate lunacy. Of course. It's nearly impossible to get the mentally ill to let go of their idée fixe. > All I hear from relativists is appeal to authority and misconstruing experiments. Which experiments are "misconstrued"? Remember, it takes just one experiment to shoot down relativity in flames. For example, one experiment which clearly demonstrates the speed of light adds simply to the speed of its source (c+v) rather than always c, would blow the second postulate out of the water, so no more SR. But in 118+ years that has never happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86e7f58e-cc14-4e2b-9804-d40ac3b9a0a2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614401 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 23:22:55 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/3/2023 2:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > I wish Pentcho Valev would comment to support his understanding of this Feynman quote. > Pentcho? WTF? Pentcho is even nutter than nearly every other crackpot And do you still believe tghat adjusting clocks to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy means putting them into some "Newton mode", stupid Mike?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02602627-a37c-45dc-8918-046bc786c340n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614336 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:22:09 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on > Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he > believed what the crackpots say? > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots Just like Herbert Dingle, he realized it was wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20280abc-050c-4620-8890-36a924dd77b3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614301 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:46:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. Einstein gave up on his Nobel light particle. In 1937 he said he could no longer reconcile it with its wave. Science dismissed what Einstein did about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web