Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-02 09:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 09:54 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 14:48 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 23:28 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 13:05 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-03 21:17 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:36 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 11:08 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 16:33 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-05 13:39 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:28 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:35 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 12:43 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 14:21 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:37 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 23:55 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 09:46 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-07 12:20 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-08 09:15 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 17:23 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-08 21:11 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 17:43 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-08 21:13 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 16:05 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Sebastian Krüger <SebastianKruger@ih3hghjgb.org> - 2016-01-08 00:57 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 20:37 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-08 09:31 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 11:20 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-10 20:40 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 16:16 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 00:39 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:14 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 05:33 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:22 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:55 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:36 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 05:07 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:44 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 14:36 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0300
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:39 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:38 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 22:37 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 19:08 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-14 15:41 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:50 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:16 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-15 01:48 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 17:52 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:48 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-12 23:18 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:08 +0300
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:12 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-16 15:36 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-16 09:26 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-16 17:00 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:03 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-18 23:19 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:49 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 21:09 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-19 11:24 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 03:28 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:45 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-16 15:31 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 14:05 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 21:58 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 19:21 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:40 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:50 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:47 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:22 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:32 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:49 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 14:40 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 19:39 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:20 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:50 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 02:09 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:27 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:15 +0300
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-15 10:17 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-15 17:54 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-15 18:02 +0100
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:43 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 08:07 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:27 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 08:37 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:48 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:49 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 12:33 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 14:16 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-09 11:45 -0600
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 18:20 +0000
Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 15:02 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 23:12 +0000
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:38 -0800
Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6p8m6$187n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373521 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:Y4OdnSuhZOkeTxLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > |Light in vacuum is isotropic with speed c. That's how these words are > used. Your > > Or, at least this is the relativistic moron's way to use words. > Of course, he is using words this way only in inertial frames, > i.e. nowhere. All frames are inertial. Acceleration/ curvature gives an additional input making them, in addition, non-inertial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 17:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6op0t$du6$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373518 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:Y4OdnSuhZOkeTxLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |Light in vacuum is isotropic with speed c. That's how these words are used. |Your attempted nit-picking cannot change this. Yes. Always remember - changing the way these words are used is only allowed to Great Gurus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 21:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6p8p3$187n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373525 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:Y4OdnSuhZOkeTxLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > |Light in vacuum is isotropic with speed c. That's how these words are > used. > |Your attempted nit-picking cannot change this. > > Yes. Always remember - changing the way these words are used is only > allowed to Great Gurus. The Great Guru was more intelligent and capable than you. But not more than me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 16:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e004545-3a13-4295-9f01-eab6a2dde152@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373460 |
Tom Roberts: "...changing relationship between the source and the measuring instrument." You teach that this "measuring instrument" belongs to the observer (receiver), so here you introduce some spooky relationship between quite distant objects. Does it (called, from now on, "Roberts' spooky relationship between the light source and the measuring instrument of the observer") have something to do with quantum entanglement? Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sebastian Krüger <SebastianKruger@ih3hghjgb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6n1hu$mpj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373499 |
Pentcho Valev wrote: > Tom Roberts: "...changing relationship between the source and the > measuring instrument." > > You teach that this "measuring instrument" belongs to the observer > (receiver), so here you introduce some spooky relationship between quite > distant objects. Does it (called, from now on, "Roberts' spooky > relationship between the light source and the measuring instrument of > the observer") have something to do with quantum entanglement? I don't understand. A measurement instrument can only be an observer and never a source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 20:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f1f39147-091c-4f59-a8dc-1f57e8b41289@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373499 |
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 5:05:52 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Tom Roberts: "...changing relationship between the source and the measuring instrument." > > You teach that this "measuring instrument" belongs to the observer > (receiver), so here you introduce some spooky relationship between > quite distant objects. C'mon, Pinhead Pentcho. Are you REALLY this stupid? You admit that the measured frequency depends on the relative motion between source and observer. Does THAT imply some "spooky" relationship? [The rest of Prevaricating Pentcho's drooling drivel deleted] Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 09:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <FemdnbDZI4f1SxLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #373499 |
On 1/7/16 1/7/16 - 6:05 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > Tom Roberts: "...changing relationship between the source and the measuring > instrument." > > You teach that this "measuring instrument" belongs to the observer > (receiver), so here you introduce some spooky relationship between quite > distant objects. The "spooky relationship" you don't understand is simply geometrical orientation. CLEARLY it is ordinary (not "spooky"), and CLEARLY it is a simple and straightforward relationship between distant objects (e.g. light source and measuring instrument). If you attempt to measure the width of a desk using a ruler not aligned with its edge, you will obtain a different value from one that is aligned. This is ALL that is happening in Doppler shift, except the orientation is in spaceTIME. The value a given instrument measures for the frequency or wavelength of a given light ray depends on the angle (in spaceTIME) between the instrument and the ray. Just like the desk. And orientation in spaceTIME varies systematically between inertial frames. This variation in orientation fully accounts for Doppler shift (and related phenomena, such as "time dilation", "length contraction", "gravitational redshift", etc.). Note there are literally zillions of experiments and measurements of this. Your repeated attempts to deny reality are hopeless. [A source which emits a light ray with definite wavelength and frequency is implicitly measuring them in its own rest frame.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6u6uj$74k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373519 |
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:31:52 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > > The value a given instrument measures for the frequency or wavelength of > a given light ray depends on the angle (in spaceTIME) between the > instrument and the ray. Just like the desk. And orientation in spaceTIME > varies systematically between inertial frames. This variation in > orientation fully accounts for Doppler shift (and related phenomena, > such as "time dilation", "length contraction", "gravitational redshift", > etc.). Poor old Tom hasn't learned a thing in my absence. Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular logic'. In Newtonian Space/time, light speed does not always equal c and it would not make one iota of difference what angle was used. > Note there are literally zillions of experiments and measurements of > this. Your repeated attempts to deny reality are hopeless. Tom appears to be hallucinating again. There has never been even ONE experiment that directly measures the 'frequency' of light or supports Einstein's second postulate. Light's frequency is an inferred quantity, defined as c/Lambda...or wave arrival rate assuming constant speed. By the way, light combs actually compare two wavelengths, not frequencies. > [A source which emits a light ray with definite wavelength and > frequency is implicitly measuring them in its own rest frame.] > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2934c4e5-fa87-47e5-99ef-270048acf0ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373636 |
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 11:12:39 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:31:52 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > The value a given instrument measures for the frequency or wavelength of > > a given light ray depends on the angle (in spaceTIME) between the > > instrument and the ray. Just like the desk. And orientation in spaceTIME > > varies systematically between inertial frames. This variation in > > orientation fully accounts for Doppler shift (and related phenomena, > > such as "time dilation", "length contraction", "gravitational redshift", > > etc.). > > Poor old Tom hasn't learned a thing in my absence. The Hermit of Oz certainly hasn't. > Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior > assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference to > it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular > logic'. It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms it to be so. > In Newtonian Space/time, light speed does not always equal c and it would > not make one iota of difference what angle was used. But it is, as confirmed by numerous valid measurements. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm Which, despite many failed attempts to deny it, is still valid and was reconfirmed by Brecher: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B which closes the door on those who criticize de Sitter due to the faint belief in extinction. And then there are those who are so desperate that they claim light carries its own aether with it :-))) > > Note there are literally zillions of experiments and measurements of > > this. Your repeated attempts to deny reality are hopeless. > > Tom appears to be hallucinating again. There has never been even ONE > experiment that directly measures the 'frequency' of light or supports > Einstein's second postulate. Light's frequency is an inferred quantity, > defined as c/Lambda...or wave arrival rate assuming constant speed. As I have shown previously to this misanthrope, this is pure baloney: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm Also by heterodyning light down to microwave FREQUENCIES: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0255673 > By the way, light combs actually compare two wavelengths, not frequencies. Neither frequency nor wavelength is a property of light: i.e., both are dependent upon the frame of the observer. As Tom correctly stated: > > [A source which emits a light ray with definite wavelength and > > frequency is implicitly measuring them in its own rest frame.] > > > > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6uc46$jee$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373639 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2934c4e5-fa87-47e5-99ef-270048acf0ac@googlegroups.com... > Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior > assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference to > it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular > logic'. |It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms |it to be so. A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. That doesn't even know, that while SR shit assumes so, GR shit assumes oppositely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7073d586-52ad-42a6-8d76-13e18a25916c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373642 |
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:40:56 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:2934c4e5-fa87-47e5-99ef-270048acf0ac@googlegroups.com... > > > > The auristic retard wrote: > > > > > > Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior > > > assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference to > > > it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular > > > logic'. > > > > It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms > >it to be so. > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. That doesn't even know, > that while SR shit assumes so, GR shit assumes oppositely. So the moronic reality denier snips the references so he can ignore the truth. Well, he can't get away with his stupid lies: But it is, as confirmed by numerous valid measurements. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm Which, despite many failed attempts to deny it, is still valid and was reconfirmed by Brecher: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B which closes the door on those who criticize de Sitter due to the faint belief in extinction. And then there are those who are so desperate that they claim light carries its own aether with it :-))) Wozniak has APD: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 00:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2c83975-51f2-4069-b4af-99e93484a875@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373649 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 stycznia 2016 01:16:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:40:56 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:2934c4e5-fa87-47e5-99ef-270048acf0ac@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > The auristic retard wrote: > > > > > > > > Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior > > > > assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference to > > > > it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular > > > > logic'. > > > > > > It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms > > >it to be so. > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. That doesn't even know, > > that while SR shit assumes so, GR shit assumes oppositely. > > So the moronic reality denier snips the references so he can ignore > the truth. Well, he can't get away with his stupid lies: > > But it is, as confirmed by numerous valid measurements. > > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm A moron yelling "PROOF!!!!STRONG PROOF!!!!" is not enough to prove anything - though, of course, other morons can believe. And while SR shit assumes constant speed of light, GR shit assumes oppositely; so - if you could really prove, what you claim you proved - it would kill your Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 05:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9994cd8-95ec-437f-b468-385a75076fec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373669 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:39:07 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 11 stycznia 2016 01:16:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:40:56 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:2934c4e5-fa87-47e5-99ef-270048acf0ac@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > The auristic retard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the > > > > > prior assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any > > > > > reference to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is > > > > > called 'circular logic'. > > > > > > > > It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms > > > > it to be so. > > > > > > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. That doesn't even know, > > > that while SR shit assumes so, GR shit assumes oppositely. > > > > So the moronic reality denier snips the references so he can ignore > > the truth. Well, he can't get away with his stupid lies: > > > > But it is, as confirmed by numerous valid measurements. > > > > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm > > A moron yelling "PROOF!!!!STRONG PROOF!!!!" is not enough > to prove anything - though, of course, other morons can believe. YOU are they only one yelling all caps and multiple exclamation marks. > And while SR shit assumes constant speed of light, GR > shit assumes oppositely; so - if you could really prove, > what you claim you proved - it would kill your Shit. They lying moronic autistic APD vacuum head spews shit from his mouth. That's enough proof for any honest person to see that his head is where his body collects his bowel movements. Nature abhors a vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 05:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aacae554-4988-4903-8861-4ad21ce499ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373680 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 stycznia 2016 14:14:22 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > And while SR shit assumes constant speed of light, GR > > shit assumes oppositely; so - if you could really prove, > > what you claim you proved - it would kill your Shit. > > They lying moronic autistic APD vacuum head spews shit from his mouth. No, poor idiot. You just don't know yoour Shit. Nothing surprising, fanatic morons don't have to know details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 06:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0e24dd4-d14e-40c6-b05a-e51c51005754@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373683 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:33:38 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > [Lying weasel moronic APD sufferer rant] What a moron!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 08:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6vqmh$1rla$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373639 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:20:29 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior >> assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference >> to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular >> logic'. > > It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms it > to be so. Oh? Which experimental evidence would that be? Something you dreamed about last night? >> In Newtonian Space/time, light speed does not always equal c and it >> would not make one iota of difference what angle was used. > > But it is, as confirmed by numerous valid measurements. Oh! Which measurements would they be? Something you dreamed about last night? > > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm > > Which, despite many failed attempts to deny it, is still valid and was > reconfirmed by Brecher: > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B > > which closes the door on those who criticize de Sitter due to the faint > belief in extinction. And then there are those who are so desperate > that they claim light carries its own aether with it :-))) Individual light quanta certainly do not travel for billions of years unchanged. >> > Note there are literally zillions of experiments and measurements of >> > this. Your repeated attempts to deny reality are hopeless. >> >> Tom appears to be hallucinating again. There has never been even ONE >> experiment that directly measures the 'frequency' of light or supports >> Einstein's second postulate. Light's frequency is an inferred >> quantity, defined as c/Lambda...or wave arrival rate assuming constant >> speed. > > As I have shown previously to this misanthrope, this is pure baloney: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm > > Also by heterodyning light down to microwave FREQUENCIES: > > http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai? verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0255673 > >> By the way, light combs actually compare two wavelengths, not >> frequencies. > > Neither frequency nor wavelength is a property of light: i.e., both are > dependent upon the frame of the observer. As Tom correctly stated: Poor fellow. I feel sorry for you.. >> > [A source which emits a light ray with definite wavelength and >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 13:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n707k1$tus$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #373671 |
On 11.01.2016 09:55, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:20:29 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior >>> assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference >>> to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular >>> logic'. >> >> It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms it >> to be so. > > Oh? Which experimental evidence would that be? Something you dreamed > about last night? Have you forgotten the nauseating experimental evidence, Ralph? :-D https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Kicking and screaming again, Ralph? It doesn't help, you know. The experimental evidence won't go away because Ralph Malcom Rabbidge calls it stupid and chooses not to believe it. (Ralph thinks that physics is a matter of belief, so he will stick to his blind faith and ignore the vast amount of experimental evidence that prove him wrong.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 05:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e711fa9-795a-4bed-9b1d-34579c5e6f91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373673 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 11 stycznia 2016 13:36:21 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 11.01.2016 09:55, Henry Wilson wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:20:29 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior > >>> assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference > >>> to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called 'circular > >>> logic'. > >> > >> It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms it > >> to be so. > > > > Oh? Which experimental evidence would that be? Something you dreamed > > about last night? > > Have you forgotten the nauseating experimental evidence, Ralph? :-D > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Unfortunately, bunch of idiots yelling "EVIDENCE!!!!!EVIDENCE!!!!!" is not any evidence. And the whole concept, though is a postulate of Special Shit, is rejected by General Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n70t5d$1u7g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373673 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:36:11 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 11.01.2016 09:55, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:20:29 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> Einstein's version of 'spacetime' is fabricated entirely on the prior >>>> assumption that light speed does always = c. Naturally, any reference >>>> to it will result in light speed equalling c. That is called >>>> 'circular logic'. >>> >>> It is a postulate of SR, but copious experimental evidence confirms it >>> to be so. >> >> Oh? Which experimental evidence would that be? Something you dreamed >> about last night? > > Have you forgotten the nauseating experimental evidence, Ralph? :-D > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > Kicking and screaming again, Henry? > It doesn't help, you know. Gawd! The silly list again. Paul has obviously never read any of those papers or he would not keep referring to them. They are all laughable. ...published by relativists, for relativists and refereed by relativists who own relativist journals. > The experimental evidence won't go away because Henry George Wilson > calls it stupid and chooses not to believe it. > > (Henry thinks that physics is a matter of belief, > so he will stick to his blind faith and ignore the vast amount of > experimental evidence that prove him wrong.) Henry (being the only qualified physicist here) knows that the only known worthwhile test of Einstein's P2 involves variable star curves which provide ample evidence that it is wrong. Paul is too scared of the truth to even investigate that evidence himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n72vhk$31c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #373703 |
On 11.01.2016 19:44, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:36:11 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Have you forgotten the nauseating experimental evidence, Ralph? :-D >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >> Kicking and screaming again, Henry? >> It doesn't help, you know. .. but Ralph keeps trying .. > Gawd! The silly list again. Paul has obviously never read any of those > papers or he would not keep referring to them. They are all > laughable. ...published by relativists, for relativists and refereed by > relativists who own relativist journals. Thanks for confirming my words below: >> The experimental evidence won't go away because Henry George Wilson >> calls it stupid and chooses not to believe it. >> >> (Henry thinks that physics is a matter of belief, >> so he will stick to his blind faith and ignore the vast amount of >> experimental evidence that prove him wrong.) :-D > Henry (being the only qualified physicist here) knows that the only known > worthwhile test of Einstein's P2 involves variable star curves which > provide ample evidence that it is wrong. Paul is too scared of the truth > to even investigate that evidence himself. Did anybody mention delusions? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web