Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380588 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-31 18:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-01 13:04 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:35 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-10 04:06 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:17 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:10 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:18 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 20:32 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:13 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 20:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:53 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 04:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 07:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 06:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:01 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 07:28 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 16:19 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:43 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:43 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-11 12:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:28 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:52 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-11 17:37 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:42 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 16:43 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-02 19:23 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-02 19:40 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-02 22:09 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 12:20 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 19:58 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 18:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 07:53 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 11:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:13 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 06:04 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-03 15:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:10 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-03 15:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 07:12 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 09:31 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 15:16 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 20:15 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 04:37 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 06:41 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 10:34 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 10:38 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-17 15:56 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 08:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:36 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-01 00:30 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 10:52 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:24 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 19:15 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 21:04 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 15:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 09:10 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 05:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-04 18:49 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-04 11:23 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:07 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-04 07:28 -0600
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:42 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:43 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:08 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 17:09 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:20 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:03 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 03:46 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 03:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:27 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-12 09:50 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:17 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 17:57 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 11:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:08 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:48 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:34 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 09:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 08:04 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 09:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-13 19:35 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-13 23:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 07:49 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 10:39 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 21:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-14 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:19 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-15 21:48 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 10:31 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-16 15:13 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 09:10 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-16 22:19 -0400
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:45 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-17 04:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-16 20:25 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-17 09:16 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-17 18:47 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-13 14:49 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-14 08:12 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 13:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-15 14:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-15 14:54 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-16 04:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:48 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-18 14:40 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:50 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 18:18 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 04:44 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-19 21:23 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 20:22 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 14:04 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-20 08:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-21 11:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 12:09 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:39 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-22 09:21 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-25 23:27 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-27 05:25 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-27 22:08 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-28 08:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-28 15:07 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-29 06:37 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-01 14:45 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 14:39 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:14 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:23 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:17 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:44 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:52 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-04 12:47 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 06:20 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-05 21:20 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 15:02 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-05 09:15 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-06 04:14 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-05 07:00 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:32 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:25 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-08 07:01 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:11 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-07 03:50 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:27 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 04:31 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:26 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-08 20:54 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:17 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-09 00:18 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:41 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-17 17:38 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:57 -0500
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 19:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 15:05 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:43 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 21:47 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:26 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-04 23:00 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 05:57 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 04:07 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 11:26 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-04 10:29 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 19:53 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-04-04 14:02 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 12:46 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 19:25 +0200
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:28 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:36 +1100
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 15:46 +0200
This is How it Happened...Summary PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:58 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 14:07 +0000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 08:00 +1000
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-03 08:33 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:47 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:54 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-17 18:35 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-03 07:51 -0700
Re: This is How it Happened...Summary nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-04 04:06 -0700
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 19:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nel369$rtl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381495 |
On 13/04/16 16:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> On 13/04/16 10:57, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure >>> geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. >> >> HAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHA! What an idiot. The geometry of Einstein's >> 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that ligth speed is source >> independent. That doesn't prove that it is and nor does it provide a >> reason why that can be true. > > Practically every measurement made in our little local segment of the universe > is consistent with the geometry of the universe being roughly that of Minkowski > spacetime. Outside of this little local segment of the universe, there is plenty > of evidence for a more elaborate geometry. Absolute crap. There has never been even one experiment that supports any of Einstein's theories. > Meanwhile, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light may be > source dependent. Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light > consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star luminosity > curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an > *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. You are unable to fit any other > observed aspect of the variable stars that you have chosen for your fits: > You cannot explain their Doppler shifts, their color changes, interferometric > measurements of changes in their diameters or (in the case of eclipsing > binaries) their interferometric resolution into separate stars. You cannot > explain broadening and narrowing of their spectral lines, periodic shifts in the > stars' spectral classes, and so forth. You cannot explain the myriad multiple > stars that *do not* exhibit significant variability. Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin > said it best: "Three out of every two stars are in a binary system." Why are > there so few variable stars, then? What would you know about that. You are just an ignorant fool who preaches Einsteiniana and believes some god thing is running the whole show. Wake up and live, man!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e76ed2b9-26d9-4c65-848e-b0f21cd9a24f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381499 |
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:23:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 13/04/16 16:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> On 13/04/16 10:57, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > >>> The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure > >>> geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. > >> > >> HAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHA! What an idiot. The geometry of Einstein's > >> 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that ligth speed is source > >> independent. That doesn't prove that it is and nor does it provide a > >> reason why that can be true. > > > > Practically every measurement made in our little local segment of the universe > > is consistent with the geometry of the universe being roughly that of Minkowski > > spacetime. Outside of this little local segment of the universe, there is plenty > > of evidence for a more elaborate geometry. > > Absolute crap. There has never been even one experiment that supports > any of Einstein's theories. Well, let's see how well *YOUR* theories hold up. Let us look at your explanation for relativistic mass increase as measured in particle accelerators. You explain the inability to accelerate particles faster than the speed of light as being the result of a "reverse field bubble" that opposes particle acceleration with increasing strength as the particle approaches light speed. A fundamental prediction of the reverse field bubble hypothesis would be that the resistance to particle acceleration must be directly proportional to the magnitude of the particle's charge. In other words, it must take as much energy to accelerate an electron to 99.9999% of the speed as it takes to accelerate a proton to the same speed. BZZZT!!! The reverse field bubble hypothesis predicts nonsense. > > Meanwhile, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light may be > > source dependent. Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light > > consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star luminosity > > curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an > > *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. You are unable to fit any other > > observed aspect of the variable stars that you have chosen for your fits: > > You cannot explain their Doppler shifts, their color changes, interferometric > > measurements of changes in their diameters or (in the case of eclipsing > > binaries) their interferometric resolution into separate stars. You cannot > > explain broadening and narrowing of their spectral lines, periodic shifts in the > > stars' spectral classes, and so forth. You cannot explain the myriad multiple > > stars that *do not* exhibit significant variability. Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin > > said it best: "Three out of every two stars are in a binary system." Why are > > there so few variable stars, then? > > What would you know about that. You are just an ignorant fool who > preaches Einsteiniana and believes some god thing is running the whole > show. Wake up and live, man! You have no answer to any of the points that I have brought up, so you run away shouting insults.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 07:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <neme0i$161m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381526 |
On 14/04/16 02:48, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:23:26 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> On 13/04/16 16:08, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >>>> On 13/04/16 10:57, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> >>>>> The existence of a universal speed limit is simply explained as a matter of pure >>>>> geometry. No unifying medium is necessary. >>>> >>>> HAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHA! What an idiot. The geometry of Einstein's >>>> 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that ligth speed is source >>>> independent. That doesn't prove that it is and nor does it provide a >>>> reason why that can be true. >>> >>> Practically every measurement made in our little local segment of the universe >>> is consistent with the geometry of the universe being roughly that of Minkowski >>> spacetime. Outside of this little local segment of the universe, there is plenty >>> of evidence for a more elaborate geometry. >> >> Absolute crap. There has never been even one experiment that supports >> any of Einstein's theories. > > Well, let's see how well *YOUR* theories hold up. > > Let us look at your explanation for relativistic mass increase as measured in > particle accelerators. You explain the inability to accelerate particles faster > than the speed of light as being the result of a "reverse field bubble" that > opposes particle acceleration with increasing strength as the particle > approaches light speed. Changing your name doesn't help. The idiot is recognized anyway. > A fundamental prediction of the reverse field bubble hypothesis would be that > the resistance to particle acceleration must be directly proportional to the > magnitude of the particle's charge. In other words, it must take as much energy > to accelerate an electron to 99.9999% of the speed as it takes to accelerate a > proton to the same speed. Crap, a = F/m.. You have proved your stupidity again, Draper. > BZZZT!!! The reverse field bubble hypothesis predicts nonsense. > >>> Meanwhile, there is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light may be >>> source dependent. Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light >>> consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star luminosity >>> curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an >>> *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. You are unable to fit any other >>> observed aspect of the variable stars that you have chosen for your fits: >>> You cannot explain their Doppler shifts, their color changes, interferometric >>> measurements of changes in their diameters or (in the case of eclipsing >>> binaries) their interferometric resolution into separate stars. You cannot >>> explain broadening and narrowing of their spectral lines, periodic shifts in the >>> stars' spectral classes, and so forth. You cannot explain the myriad multiple >>> stars that *do not* exhibit significant variability. Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin >>> said it best: "Three out of every two stars are in a binary system." Why are >>> there so few variable stars, then? Three out of every two! My word Cecilia was very clever....and a mere female.. >> What would you know about that. You are just an ignorant fool who >> preaches Einsteiniana and believes some god thing is running the whole >> show. Wake up and live, man! > > You have no answer to any of the points that I have brought up, so you run > away shouting insults. Poor fool....go away and try changing your name again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 17:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QeSdncDScvJKIJPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #381495 |
On 4/13/16 4/13/16 2:08 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> [...] > Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light > consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star luminosity > curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an > *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. [...] Moreover, he does not realize that the first thing any real scientist would do with such a program is to use it to analyze observable binary stars, for which the orbital parameters are VISIBLE and known. That would show that the ASSUMPTIONS that went into developing the program were valid, and the code is correct. Of course HGW won't do this, because it would instantly show that his program is useless. This is jut one more aspect of him carefully keeping himself ignorant of any physics that would conflict with his preconceived notions. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 09:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nemj68$1ddh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381556 |
On 14/04/16 07:44, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/13/16 4/13/16 2:08 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >>> [...] >> Your sole "evidence" for source dependent speed of light >> consists of a set of fits to a selected handful of variable star >> luminosity >> curves with the settings of your curve fitting program restricted to an >> *extremely* narrow subset of parameter space. [...] > > Moreover, he does not realize that the first thing any real scientist > would do with such a program is to use it to analyze observable binary > stars, for which the orbital parameters are VISIBLE and known. That > would show that the ASSUMPTIONS that went into developing the program > were valid, and the code is correct. Poor old Tom. One must feel sorry for such a narrow minded person, incapable of further mental development. Tom does not realize that the observations he mentions are based on constant light speed. Astronomers perceive Willusions, not true images. The true orbital parameters might be quite different from the apparent ones. > Of course HGW won't do this, because it would instantly show that his > program is useless. This is jut one more aspect of him carefully keeping > himself ignorant of any physics that would conflict with his > preconceived notions. How sad. If you can point to some examples I would be only too pleased to investigate them. None in the Kepler mission archives appear to be close enough to be resolved optically. What is quite obvious is that most short period variability is due to c+v variations caused by surface movements as various modes of ripples appear and disappear. Only BaTh can provide a general explanation for star variability. Other published attempts based on constant light speed are plainly pathetic and reveal a degree of desperation. A significant proportion of Kepler stars do show longer term and seemingly chaotic variability, which usually consists of a number of stable frequencies. I have easily produced this type of curve by simulating stars with up to six orbiting satellites. While the Kepler mob are struggling to find planets with their 'transit' method, I have found thousands in this way. The universe is full of planets and many are obviously like ours. Tom does not understand the finer points of the new BaTh at all. He does not realize that almost all light in the universe spends almost all of its time in transit, where its state is completely unknown to science. Experiments involving emission and absorption only reveal how light reacts with the apparatus used. Tom does not understand how BaTh predicts that individual light quanta do not remain individual for very long but merge with other EM as they travel to form broad wavefronts in what is somewhat like an 'aether' created by the quanta themselves. Their individual speeds become unified in that process, at rates depending on the EM flux density. Tom said himself that the extinction rate in space is around 2LYs. That fits in well with my own analyses of variable stars. Tom does knows nothing about ADoppler, which is a distance dependent wavelength shift due to a source's ACCELERATION. Even Paul Andersen understands how it comes about...and even orbit periods can appear grossly distorted. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nej2mg$7h0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #381398 |
HGW <hw@...> writes: >On 09/04/16 13:28, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <HGW@home.com> writes: >If an observer on the moon watched an object free falling towards Earth, >his LOS angle would be accelerating. He would assume a force was acting >on the object and it was not inertial. That involves more complicated GR because of various gravity fields. SR can't really be applied. >> Henry, Henry, Henry. How many times does it have to be explained to >Don't misquote me, you desperate lying dingleberry cretin. Seto wrote >that not I. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, don't misquote me, Ralph. Ralph, I did not write that or anything else to insult Henry George Wilson, one of the finest scientists Down Under, one who never posts here, Ralph. I was replying to you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Mr. Wilson likely has no needs of dingleberries (acolytes of Herbert Dingle) such as yourself, so he is unlikely to ever post here, except perhaps to protect his reputation from yourself, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. >>> In SR, every observer effectively has a 'personal aether frame'. That is >>> a direct result of Lorentz's work. >> >> 'Personal aether frame'? You are off your meds, Ralph. That is so stupid, >> even for you. And once again, we're talking about SR, not LET. LET does >> refer to an aether, SR does not. >Idiot, You don't even know how Einstein was able to interpret and >plagiarize the consequences of Lorentz's theory. The existence of the >aether medium is fundamental to both theories. Ralph, how could aether possibly be fundamental to SR if it is explicitly excluded from being part of SR in the very paper defining SR? Don't blame Einstein for your own fault of being unable to understand SR without an aether. Ralph, do you realize that projection (accusing others of one's own faults or shortcomings) like that is often a symptom of insanity? Actually, getting rid of the aether was one of the breakthroughs of SR. I'm sure Einstein's photoelectric work helped him with that, as it showed him that light could be more particlelike thus not needing an aether. LET on the other hand is different. It defines things relative to an absolute aether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 08:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nejrd7$198i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381445 |
On 13/04/16 01:02, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@...> writes: >>>> In SR, every observer effectively has a 'personal aether frame'. That is >>>> a direct result of Lorentz's work. >>> >>> 'Personal aether frame'? You are off your meds, Ralph. That is so stupid, >>> even for you. And once again, we're talking about SR, not LET. LET does >>> refer to an aether, SR does not. > >> Idiot, You don't even know how Einstein was able to interpret and >> plagiarize the consequences of Lorentz's theory. The existence of the >> aether medium is fundamental to both theories. > > Henry, how could aether possibly be fundamental to SR if it is explicitly > excluded from being part of SR in the very paper defining SR? The fact that the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it was not fundamental to the theory. It is. Its existence enabled Einstein to word his P2 exactly along the lines of Lorentz's conclusions. The aether made light speed source independent and the LTs made it observer independent. Obvious, eh? Einstein plagiarized the idea, stated those findings as a postulate and derived the maths that were consistent with the postulate. He had no reason to mention the aether because it was well and truly included in the postulate. How else could light emitted by differently moving sources possibly find a common speed? Without a unifying medium, the idea is ludicrous. Don't blame > Einstein for your own fault of being unable to understand SR without an > aether. Henry, do you realize that projection (accusing others of one's > own faults or shortcomings) like that is often a symptom of insanity? I can understand LET without an aether. It is the same theory as SR... Lorentz had no reason to mention the aether after he concocted the LTs. > Actually, getting rid of the aether was one of the > breakthroughs of SR. I'm sure Einstein's photoelectric work helped him > with that, as it showed him that light could be more particlelike thus > not needing an aether. So now you are agreeing with BaTh...thanks Moron-y. There is hope for you yet. > LET on the other hand is different. It defines things relative to an > absolute aether frame. After the LT idea, observations become relative and don't need absolutism at all, just as in SR. In the midst of all the subsequent controversy and discussion, Einstein hopped in with his disguised version of the same thing...and with a few faked experiments by other SciFi addicts, became famous. As I have pointed out before, he would have made an excellent used car salesman....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 09:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neks56$2gn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381466 |
On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: > > The fact that the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it was not > fundamental to the theory. It is. Its existence enabled Einstein to word > his P2 exactly along the lines of Lorentz's conclusions. The aether made > light speed source independent and the LTs made it observer independent. > Obvious, eh? > > Einstein plagiarized the idea, stated those findings as a postulate and > derived the maths that were consistent with the postulate. He had no > reason to mention the aether because it was well and truly included in > the postulate. How else could light emitted by differently moving > sources possibly find a common speed? Without a unifying medium, the > idea is ludicrous. Ralph, it would be interesting to see your answer to the following question: If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? But we won't see that, will we? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 19:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nel3tn$t1o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381498 |
On 13/04/16 17:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: >> >> The fact that the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it was not >> fundamental to the theory. It is. Its existence enabled Einstein to word >> his P2 exactly along the lines of Lorentz's conclusions. The aether made >> light speed source independent and the LTs made it observer independent. >> Obvious, eh? >> >> Einstein plagiarized the idea, stated those findings as a postulate and >> derived the maths that were consistent with the postulate. He had no >> reason to mention the aether because it was well and truly included in >> the postulate. How else could light emitted by differently moving >> sources possibly find a common speed? Without a unifying medium, the >> idea is ludicrous. > > Ralph, it would be interesting to see your answer > to the following question: > > If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, > and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's > sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to > 'the unifying medium'? > > But we won't see that, will we? :-D I see. Because you cannot answer the homework question I gave you, you are now trying to procrastinate by asking me one. I can answer your question. It is quite obvious that we can have any speeds. That is exactly what Lorentz discovered and what Einstein plagiarized...but there is a problem. It only works for speeds much smaller than c. ..and it only works if light speeds are unified by an absolute medium. CMIIW! By coincidence I was about to ask you something similar. If O1 is moving at absolute v and O2 is moving at absolute u, what does O1 say about O2's speed and what does O2 say about O1's speed? Since you claim that SR always agrees with LET, what does SR say about that whole scenario? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 23:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nemcuk$2jp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381500 |
On 13.04.2016 11:35, HGW wrote: > On 13/04/16 17:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: >>> >>> The fact that the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it was not >>> fundamental to the theory. It is. Its existence enabled Einstein to word >>> his P2 exactly along the lines of Lorentz's conclusions. The aether made >>> light speed source independent and the LTs made it observer independent. >>> Obvious, eh? >>> >>> Einstein plagiarized the idea, stated those findings as a postulate and >>> derived the maths that were consistent with the postulate. He had no >>> reason to mention the aether because it was well and truly included in >>> the postulate. How else could light emitted by differently moving >>> sources possibly find a common speed? Without a unifying medium, the >>> idea is ludicrous. >> >> Ralph, it would be interesting to see your answer >> to the following question: >> >> If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >> and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >> sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >> 'the unifying medium'? >> >> But we won't see that, will we? :-D > > I see. Because you cannot answer the homework question I gave you, you > are now trying to procrastinate by asking me one. > > I can answer your question. It is quite obvious that we can have any > speeds. That is exactly what Lorentz discovered and what Einstein > plagiarized...but there is a problem. It only works for speeds much > smaller than c. ..and it only works if light speeds are unified by an > absolute medium. CMIIW! > > By coincidence I was about to ask you something similar. > > If O1 is moving at absolute v and O2 is moving at absolute u, what does > O1 say about O2's speed and what does O2 say about O1's speed? Ralph, you are babbling. The question was: If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? Repeat: What are our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? > Since you claim that SR always agrees with LET, what does SR say about > that whole scenario? The answer is given in the question above: According to SR and LET: "both measure the speed of the light from each other's sources to be c" -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 07:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nemesm$17g1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381551 |
On 14/04/16 07:16, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Henry, it would be interesting to see your answer to the >> >> I can answer your question. It is quite obvious that we can have >> any speeds. That is exactly what Lorentz discovered and what >> Einstein plagiarized...but there is a problem. It only works for >> speeds much smaller than c. ..and it only works if light speeds are >> unified by an absolute medium. CMIIW! >> >> By coincidence I was about to ask you something similar. >> >> If O1 is moving at absolute v and O2 is moving at absolute u, what >> does O1 say about O2's speed and what does O2 say about O1's >> speed? > > Henry, you are babbling. > > The question was: If our relative speed is v, and we both have a > light source, and we both measure the speed of the light from each > other's sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to 'the > unifying medium'? > > Repeat: What are our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? I have answered your question. Can't you read. If such a medium were present and the LTs were valid, there would be no way to determine one's absolute speed using light and clocks. That is why Lorentz realised that the aether was superfluous. That is why he, Poincare and others considered and formulated relativity before Einstein and his conspirators jumped in a stole the limelight. > > >> Since you claim that SR always agrees with LET, what does SR say >> about that whole scenario? > > The answer is given in the question above: According to SR and LET: > "both measure the speed of the light from each other's sources to be > c" Hahahhaha! Paul B. is obviously going senile. The question asked how each observer might determine the other observer's speed and what answer he would get. ...not the speed of his light. Consider the question from LET and SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nenl0i$8vc$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381557 |
On 13.04.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: > On 14/04/16 07:16, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.04.2016 11:35, HGW wrote: >>> On 13/04/16 17:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> Ralph, it would be interesting to see your answer >>>> to the following question: >>>> >>>> If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >>>> and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >>>> sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >>>> 'the unifying medium'? >>>> >>>> But we won't see that, will we? >>> >>> I see. Because you cannot answer the homework question I gave you, you >>> are now trying to procrastinate by asking me one. >>> >>> I can answer your question. It is quite obvious that we can have any >>> speeds. That is exactly what Lorentz discovered and what Einstein >>> plagiarized...but there is a problem. It only works for speeds much >>> smaller than c. ..and it only works if light speeds are unified by an >>> absolute medium. CMIIW! >>> >>> By coincidence I was about to ask you something similar. >>> >>> If O1 is moving at absolute v and O2 is moving at absolute u, what does >>> O1 say about O2's speed and what does O2 say about O1's speed? >> >> Ralph, you are babbling. >> >> The question was: >> If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >> and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >> sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >> 'the unifying medium'? >> >> Repeat: >> What are our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? >> > > I have answered your question. Can't you read. If such a medium were > present and the LTs were valid, there would be no way to determine one's > absolute speed using light and clocks. That is why Lorentz realised that > the aether was superfluous. That is why he, Poincare and others > considered and formulated relativity before Einstein and his > conspirators jumped in a stole the limelight. It is interesting to note that you have snipped your statement which made me ask the question you now are desperate to evade answering. On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: | He [Einstein] had no reason to mention the aether because it was | well and truly included in the postulate. How else could light | emitted by differently moving sources possibly find a common speed? | Without a unifying medium, the idea is ludicrous. ===================================================== Your claim is that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a unifying medium'. ===================================================== But a consequence of the second postulate of SR is that if we are moving relative to each other with a light source in our hands, we would both measure the speed of the light from each other's source to be c. Repeat with tiny spoons: P2 implies that two persons who are moving relative to each other in the alleged 'unifying medium' both will measure the speed of the light which is moving in the alleged 'unifying medium' to be c. The consequence is that the two persons must conclude that the speed of light relative to the alleged 'unifying medium' in which at least one of them is moving must be different from c. So the alleged 'unifying medium' does not 'unify' the speed of light, and is therefore no 'unifying medium'. So the point with my question: | If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, | and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's | sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to | 'the unifying medium'? .. was obviously to show that P2 implies that there can _not_ be 'a unifying medium', and only an ignoramus could claim that P2 implies the existence of it when the only logical conclusion is the exact opposite. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 21:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nenuug$1ii6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381606 |
On 14/04/16 18:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.04.2016 23:49, HGW wrote: >> On 14/04/16 07:16, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 13.04.2016 11:35, HGW wrote: >>>> On 13/04/16 17:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ralph, it would be interesting to see your answer >>>>> to the following question: >>>>> >>>>> If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >>>>> and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >>>>> sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >>>>> 'the unifying medium'? >>>>> >>>>> But we won't see that, will we? >>>> >>>> I see. Because you cannot answer the homework question I gave you, you >>>> are now trying to procrastinate by asking me one. >>>> >>>> I can answer your question. It is quite obvious that we can have any >>>> speeds. That is exactly what Lorentz discovered and what Einstein >>>> plagiarized...but there is a problem. It only works for speeds much >>>> smaller than c. ..and it only works if light speeds are unified by an >>>> absolute medium. CMIIW! >>>> >>>> By coincidence I was about to ask you something similar. >>>> >>>> If O1 is moving at absolute v and O2 is moving at absolute u, what does >>>> O1 say about O2's speed and what does O2 say about O1's speed? >>> >>> Ralph, you are babbling. >>> >>> The question was: >>> If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >>> and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >>> sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >>> 'the unifying medium'? >>> >>> Repeat: >>> What are our speeds relative to 'the unifying medium'? >>> >> >> I have answered your question. Can't you read. If such a medium were >> present and the LTs were valid, there would be no way to determine one's >> absolute speed using light and clocks. That is why Lorentz realised that >> the aether was superfluous. That is why he, Poincare and others >> considered and formulated relativity before Einstein and his >> conspirators jumped in a stole the limelight. > > It is interesting to note that you have snipped your statement > which made me ask the question you now are desperate to evade > answering. > > On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: > | He [Einstein] had no reason to mention the aether because it was > | well and truly included in the postulate. How else could light > | emitted by differently moving sources possibly find a common speed? > | Without a unifying medium, the idea is ludicrous. > > ===================================================== > Your claim is that the second postulate of SR implies > that there must be 'a unifying medium'. > ===================================================== > > But a consequence of the second postulate of SR is that > if we are moving relative to each other with a light source > in our hands, we would both measure the speed of the light > from each other's source to be c. Hahahha!, no Paul, that is not the right interpretation. Irrespective of our absolute movement and because ot the LTs, we will always measure the speed of light to be c BECAUSE all light is assumed to moving at c relative to the aether frame. If light speeds were not unified by the aether, we would not always measure it to be c. > Repeat with tiny spoons: > P2 implies that two persons who are moving relative to > each other in the alleged 'unifying medium' both will > measure the speed of the light which is moving in > the alleged 'unifying medium' to be c. The consequence > is that the two persons must conclude that the speed > of light relative to the alleged 'unifying medium' > in which at least one of them is moving must be > different from c. What a strange thing to say! They would not conclude that at all. They would observe that the speed was always c irrespective of the other's speed changes and naturally assume that as with sound in air, the speed was determined by the medium and not the source's movement. So the alleged 'unifying medium' > does not 'unify' the speed of light, and is therefore > no 'unifying medium'. I have heard you exude rubbish before but not on this level. You are virtually saying, "if one assumes an aether, then one can prove there is no aether. > So the point with my question: > | If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, > | and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's > | sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to > | 'the unifying medium'? And the point of my reply was to point out that it would be impossible to determine, if Lorentz's bogus contractions applied. Lgamma/Tgamma is constant for all values of v (absolute speed), wouldn't you agree? > .. was obviously to show that P2 implies that there can > _not_ be 'a unifying medium', and only an ignoramus could > claim that P2 implies the existence of it when the only > logical conclusion is the exact opposite. You don't get it. P2's claim of OBSERVER independence is conditional on the prior assumption that all light speeds are SOURCE independent...and source independence can only be achieved if a medium exists. If light speeds were not unified, your question would make no sense. Of course in reality, we don't measure light speed from moving sources to be c, so the question is purely academic anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 15:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <neo50u$6jq$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381615 |
On 14.04.2016 13:29, HGW wrote: > On 14/04/16 18:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> On 13.04.2016 00:04, HGW wrote: >> | He [Einstein] had no reason to mention the aether because it was >> | well and truly included in the postulate. How else could light >> | emitted by differently moving sources possibly find a common speed? >> | Without a unifying medium, the idea is ludicrous. >> >> ===================================================== >> Your claim is that the second postulate of SR implies >> that there must be 'a unifying medium'. >> ===================================================== >> >> But a consequence of the second postulate of SR is that >> if we are moving relative to each other with a light source >> in our hands, we would both measure the speed of the light >> from each other's source to be c. > > Hahahha!, no Paul, that is not the right interpretation. Irrespective > of our absolute movement and because ot the LTs, we will always measure > the speed of light to be c BECAUSE all light is assumed to moving at c > relative to the aether frame. If light speeds were not unified by the > aether, we would not always measure it to be c. > >> Repeat with tiny spoons: >> P2 implies that two persons who are moving relative to >> each other in the alleged 'unifying medium' both will >> measure the speed of the light which is moving in >> the alleged 'unifying medium' to be c. The consequence >> is that the two persons must conclude that the speed >> of light relative to the alleged 'unifying medium' >> in which at least one of them is moving must be >> different from c. > > What a strange thing to say! > They would not conclude that at all. They would observe that the speed > was always c irrespective of the other's speed changes and naturally > assume that as with sound in air, the speed was determined by the medium > and not the source's movement. > >> So the alleged 'unifying medium' >> does not 'unify' the speed of light, and is therefore >> no 'unifying medium'. > > I have heard you exude rubbish before but not on this level. You are > virtually saying, "if one assumes an aether, then one can prove there is > no aether. > >> So the point with my question: >> | If our relative speed is v, and we both have a light source, >> | and we both measure the speed of the light from each other's >> | sources to be c, what are then our speeds relative to >> | 'the unifying medium'? > > And the point of my reply was to point out that it would be impossible > to determine, if Lorentz's bogus contractions applied. > Lgamma/Tgamma is constant for all values of v (absolute speed), wouldn't > you agree? ===================================================== Your claim is that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a unifying medium'. ===================================================== But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite, there is no 'unifying medium'. You were wrong! >> .. was obviously to show that P2 implies that there can >> _not_ be 'a unifying medium', and only an ignoramus could >> claim that P2 implies the existence of it when the only >> logical conclusion is the exact opposite. > > You don't get it. P2's claim of OBSERVER independence is conditional on > the prior assumption that all light speeds are SOURCE independent...and > source independence can only be achieved if a medium exists. > > If light speeds were not unified, your question would make no sense. I can only conclude that elementary logic is too advanced for the fully competent physicist who has studied maths and physics for 11 years at the best universities down under! Look: The second postulate of SR say that the speed off light is invariant, that means that it is c regardless in which inertial frame it is measured. How is it possible to claim that the only way the speed of light can be c in two inertial frames which are moving relative to each other with - say - 0.5 c, is that it is a 'unifying medium' relative to which both the inertial frames are stationary? The only explanation I can see for such a ridiculous claim is not very flattering for you, Ralph! > Of course in reality, we don't measure light speed from moving sources > to be c, so the question is purely academic anyway. This may be true according to the blind faith of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge. But physics isn't a question of faith, it is a question of hard experimental evidence. And in the real world the experimental evidence tell us that the speed of light in accordance with P2 is invariant, which according to upside up logic show that there is no 'unifying medium'. 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 You will kick and scream, but the evidence won't go away! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 14:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nepq40$149p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381633 |
On 14/04/16 23:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 14.04.2016 13:29, HGW wrote: >>> So the alleged 'unifying medium' does not 'unify' the speed of >>> light, and is therefore no 'unifying medium'. >> >> I have heard you exude rubbish before but not on this level. You >> are virtually saying, "if one assumes an aether, then one can >> prove there is no aether. >> >>> So the point with my question: | If our relative speed is v, and >>> we both have a light source, | and we both measure the speed of >>> the light from each other's | sources to be c, what are then our >>> speeds relative to | 'the unifying medium'? >> >> And the point of my reply was to point out that it would be >> impossible to determine, if Lorentz's bogus contractions applied. >> Lgamma/Tgamma is constant for all values of v (absolute speed), >> wouldn't you agree? > > ===================================================== Your claim is > that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a > unifying medium'. > ===================================================== > > But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite, there is no > 'unifying medium'. P2 has a fundamental dependence on the existence of an aether. Having assumed the aether by postulate, there is no further need to mention it. > You were wrong! I don't think so. > >>> .. was obviously to show that P2 implies that there can _not_ be >>> 'a unifying medium', and only an ignoramus could claim that P2 >>> implies the existence of it when the only logical conclusion is >>> the exact opposite. >> >> You don't get it. P2's claim of OBSERVER independence is >> conditional on the prior assumption that all light speeds are >> SOURCE independent...and source independence can only be achieved >> if a medium exists. >> >> If light speeds were not unified, your question would make no >> sense. > > I can only conclude that elementary logic is too advanced for the > fully competent physicist who has studied maths and physics for 11 > years at the best universities down under! Well I'm obviously a lot smarter than you or any other dingleberry. > Look: The second postulate of SR say that the speed off light is > invariant, that means that it is c regardless in which inertial > frame it is measured. The second postulate merely sums up the findings of LET and Poincare's interpretation of that. Whilst both Lorentz and Poincare openly discussed the aether, Einstein deviously camouflaged its presence in his P2 and then claimed the aether was superfluous. > How is it possible to claim that the only way the speed of light can > be c in two inertial frames which are moving relative to each other > with - say - 0.5 c, is that it is a 'unifying medium' relative to > which both the inertial frames are stationary? Hahahhahaha! How stupid can a person be? You can't even understand what I said. Please describe your method of ensuring that differently moving observers always measure each other's light to be c. If you can't do that, don't bother to reply at all. > The only explanation I can see for such a ridiculous claim is not > very flattering for you, Henry! Flattery from a dingleberry would be an insult. >> Of course in reality, we don't measure light speed from moving >> sources to be c, so the question is purely academic anyway. > > This may be true according to the blind faith of Henry George Wilson > DSc. But physics isn't a question of faith, it is a question of hard > experimental evidence. Since 1905, physics has become a religion. > And in the real world the experimental evidence tell us that the > speed of light in accordance with P2 is invariant, which according > to upside up logic show that there is no 'unifying medium'. > > 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 > > You will kick and scream, but the evidence won't go away! All laughable!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 21:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nergj3$lcj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381714 |
On 15.04.2016 06:19, HGW wrote: > On 14/04/16 23:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> ===================================================== >> Your claim is >> that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a >> unifying medium'. >> ===================================================== >> >> But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite, there is no >> 'unifying medium'. > > P2 has a fundamental dependence on the existence of an aether. Having > assumed the aether by postulate, there is no further need to mention it. > >> You were wrong! > > I don't think so. > >> I can only conclude that elementary logic is too advanced for the >> fully competent physicist who has studied maths and physics for 11 >> years at the best universities down under! > > Well I'm obviously a lot smarter than you or any other dingleberry. > >> Look: The second postulate of SR say that the speed off light is >> invariant, that means that it is c regardless in which inertial >> frame it is measured. > > The second postulate merely sums up the findings of LET and Poincare's > interpretation of that. Whilst both Lorentz and Poincare openly > discussed the aether, Einstein deviously camouflaged its presence in his > P2 and then claimed the aether was superfluous. You are babbling. The second postulate of SR is: << Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. >> The "stationary system of coordinates" is defined as what we now call an inertial frame of reference. So the second postulate is that the speed of light is invariant. That means that it is c regardless in which inertial frame it is measured. >> How is it possible to claim that the only way the speed of light can >> be c in two inertial frames which are moving relative to each other >> with - say - 0.5 c, is that it is a 'unifying medium' relative to >> which both the inertial frames are stationary? > > Hahahhahaha! How stupid can a person be? You can't even understand what > I said. > Please describe your method of ensuring that differently moving > observers always measure each other's light to be c. If you can't do > that, don't bother to reply at all. You are babbling irrelevancies. The question is the consequences of the second postulate. I understand perfectly well what you said; you claimed that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a unifying medium'. But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite, there is no 'unifying medium'. You were wrong! >> The only explanation I can see for such a ridiculous claim is not >> very flattering for you, Henry! > > Flattery from a dingleberry would be an insult. Don't worry. I will never flatter you. Quite the contrary, I will elaborate on what is not flattering: The claim that the second postulate of SR implies that there must be 'a unifying medium' can only be made by a person who is very ignorant of elementary logic, physics and maths, and if he claim to be "a fully competent physicist" or a DCs, he must obviously be a fraud. >>> Of course in reality, we don't measure light speed from moving >>> sources to be c, so the question is purely academic anyway. >> >> This may be true according to the blind faith of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >> DSc. But physics isn't a question of faith, it is a question of hard >> experimental evidence. >> >> And in the real world the experimental evidence tell us that the >> speed of light in accordance with P2 is invariant, which according >> to upside up logic show that there is no 'unifying medium'. >> >> 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 >> >> You will kick and scream, but the evidence won't go away! > > All laughable! Did that remark make the experimental evidence go away? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 10:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nes15l$nbr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381748 |
On 16/04/16 05:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.04.2016 06:19, HGW wrote: >>> I can only conclude that elementary logic is too advanced for the >>> fully competent physicist who has studied maths and physics for 11 >>> years at the best universities down under! >> >> Well I'm obviously a lot smarter than you or any other dingleberry. >> >>> Look: The second postulate of SR say that the speed off light is >>> invariant, that means that it is c regardless in which inertial >>> frame it is measured. >> >> The second postulate merely sums up the findings of LET and Poincare's >> interpretation of that. Whilst both Lorentz and Poincare openly >> discussed the aether, Einstein deviously camouflaged its presence in his >> P2 and then claimed the aether was superfluous. > > You are babbling. > > The second postulate of SR is: > << > Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates > with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by > a stationary or by a moving body. > >> > The "stationary system of coordinates" is defined as what we now > call an inertial frame of reference. > > So the second postulate is that the speed of light is invariant. > That means that it is c regardless in which inertial frame it > is measured. Why don't you try to learn something. To explain the MMX null result, Lorentz and FitzG concocted their silly transforms by which their rods and clocks varied so that no matter how they moved, they always got the answer c when measuring the speed of light. That idea was based on the 'light clock' interpretation (or the MMX cross beam) that the travel time of the beam would be L/gamma....so they reckoned the parallel length must shrink in that proportion too. That being so, it was deemed impossible to measure variations in light speed as the Earth moved around its orbit...and impossible to measure one's absolute speed. However, those transformed only produced the constant speed c because that was the assumed universal speed in the aether. Bth Lorentz and Poincare (and maybe a few others) subsequently realised that this effectively made the aether redundant, in that it no longer played any part in further considerations. However, that did not mean it disappeared altogether. It was the fundamental medium for unifying light speeds. >>> How is it possible to claim that the only way the speed of light can >>> be c in two inertial frames which are moving relative to each other >>> with - say - 0.5 c, is that it is a 'unifying medium' relative to >>> which both the inertial frames are stationary? >> >> Hahahhahaha! How stupid can a person be? You can't even understand what >> I said. >> Please describe your method of ensuring that differently moving >> observers always measure each other's light to be c. If you can't do >> that, don't bother to reply at all. > > You are babbling irrelevancies. > > The question is the consequences of the second postulate. Words do not cause physical effects. Only an idiot would believe so. > I understand perfectly well what you said; you claimed > that the second postulate of SR implies that there must > be 'a unifying medium'. Of course. How else could light speed be source independent without a cause? Are you still suggesting the fairies do it? > But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite, > there is no 'unifying medium'. > > You were wrong! > >>> The only explanation I can see for such a ridiculous claim is not >>> very flattering for you, Henry! >> >> Flattery from a dingleberry would be an insult. > > Don't worry. I will never flatter you. > Quite the contrary, I will elaborate on what is not flattering: > > The claim that the second postulate of SR implies that there > must be 'a unifying medium' can only be made by a person who > is very ignorant of elementary logic, physics and maths, > and if he claim to be "a fully competent physicist" or a DCs, > he must obviously be a fraud. THe second postulate is fraudulent and becasue it appeared to do away with he need for an aether made Eeinstein famous in the eyes of opportunist dingleberries. We know now that he was a plagiarising liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 15:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <netdpq$8v1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #381753 |
On 16.04.2016 02:31, HGW wrote:
> On 16/04/16 05:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 15.04.2016 06:19, HGW wrote:
>>> On 14/04/16 23:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look: The second postulate of SR say that the speed off light is
>>>> invariant, that means that it is c regardless in which inertial
>>>> frame it is measured.
>>>
>>> The second postulate merely sums up the findings of LET and Poincare's
>>> interpretation of that. Whilst both Lorentz and Poincare openly
>>> discussed the aether, Einstein deviously camouflaged its presence in his
>>> P2 and then claimed the aether was superfluous.
>>
>> You are babbling.
>>
>> The second postulate of SR is:
>> <<
>> Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates
>> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
>> a stationary or by a moving body.
>> >>
>> The "stationary system of coordinates" is defined as what we now
>> call an inertial frame of reference.
>>
>> So the second postulate is that the speed of light is invariant.
>> That means that it is c regardless in which inertial frame it
>> is measured.
>
> Why don't you try to learn something.
> To explain the MMX null result, Lorentz and FitzG concocted their silly
> transforms by which their rods and clocks varied so that no matter how
> they moved, they always got the answer c when measuring the speed of
> light. That idea was based on the 'light clock' interpretation (or the
> MMX cross beam) that the travel time of the beam would be L/gamma....so
> they reckoned the parallel length must shrink in that proportion too.
> That being so, it was deemed impossible to measure variations in light
> speed as the Earth moved around its orbit...and impossible to measure
> one's absolute speed. However, those transformed only produced the
> constant speed c because that was the assumed universal speed in the
> aether. Bth Lorentz and Poincare (and maybe a few others) subsequently
> realised that this effectively made the aether redundant, in that it no
> longer played any part in further considerations. However, that did not
> mean it disappeared altogether. It was the fundamental medium for
> unifying light speeds.
Ralph, do you think this babble can change the fact that the second
postulate of SR is that the speed of light in vacuum is invariant?
And do you think that this babble can change the fact that
invariant speed of light is incompatible with a 'unifying medium'?
And do you think that this babble can change the fact that your
claim: "the second postulate of SR implies a 'unifying medium' "
is a ridiculous claim?
>>>> How is it possible to claim that the only way the speed of light can
>>>> be c in two inertial frames which are moving relative to each other
>>>> with - say - 0.5 c, is that it is a 'unifying medium' relative to
>>>> which both the inertial frames are stationary?
>>>
>>> Hahahhahaha! How stupid can a person be? You can't even understand what
>>> I said.
>>> Please describe your method of ensuring that differently moving
>>> observers always measure each other's light to be c. If you can't do
>>> that, don't bother to reply at all.
>>
>> You are babbling irrelevancies.
>>
>> The question is the consequences of the second postulate.
>
> Words do not cause physical effects. Only an idiot would believe so.
This is in fact a very revealing statement. :-D
Paul: A logical consequence of the second postulate of SR
is that there is no 'unifying medium'.
Ralph: Only an idiot would believe that word can cause physical
effects, so the logical consequence of the second postulate
cannot be that there is no 'unifying medium'.
I have seen this down under upside down logic before:
Paul: The inevitable logical consequence of the postulates
of SR is that simultaneity is relative.
Ralph: My faith is that simultaneity is absolute,
so relativity of simultaneity cannot be a logical
consequence of the postulates of SR.
>> I understand perfectly well what you said; you claimed
>> that the second postulate of SR implies that there must
>> be 'a unifying medium'.
>
> Of course. How else could light speed be source independent without a
> cause? Are you still suggesting the fairies do it?
>
>> But the consequence of P2 is the exact opposite,
>> there is no 'unifying medium'.
>>
>> You were wrong!
>>
>>>> The only explanation I can see for such a ridiculous claim is not
>>>> very flattering for you, Ralph!
>>>
>>> Flattery from a dingleberry would be an insult.
>>
>> Don't worry. I will never flatter you.
>> Quite the contrary, I will elaborate on what is not flattering:
>>
>> The claim that the second postulate of SR implies that there
>> must be 'a unifying medium' can only be made by a person who
>> is very ignorant of elementary logic, physics and maths,
>> and if he claim to be "a fully competent physicist" or a DCs,
>> he must obviously be a fraud.
>
> THe second postulate is fraudulent and becasue it appeared to do away
> with he need for an aether made Eeinstein famous in the eyes of
> opportunist dingleberries.
> We know now that he was a plagiarising liar.
Your opinion of the second postulate is utterly irrelevant
to what the logical consequences of the second postulate are.
Your claim that the second postulate implies a 'unifying medium'
is a ridiculous claim, because the consequences of the second
postulate is the exact opposite.
In the real word, the invariance of the speed of light
is very well confirmed by a lot of experiments.
Here are a few of them:
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
And even more important: no experiment has ever falsified SR.
Case closed, but you will keep kicking and screaming.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 09:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <neugpq$h18$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381775 |
On 16/04/16 23:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 16.04.2016 02:31, HGW wrote: >>> >>> So the second postulate is that the speed of light is invariant. >>> That means that it is c regardless in which inertial frame it >>> is measured. >> >> Why don't you try to learn something. >> To explain the MMX null result, Lorentz and FitzG concocted their silly >> transforms by which their rods and clocks varied so that no matter how >> they moved, they always got the answer c when measuring the speed of >> light. That idea was based on the 'light clock' interpretation (or the >> MMX cross beam) that the travel time of the beam would be L/gamma....so >> they reckoned the parallel length must shrink in that proportion too. >> That being so, it was deemed impossible to measure variations in light >> speed as the Earth moved around its orbit...and impossible to measure >> one's absolute speed. However, those transformed only produced the >> constant speed c because that was the assumed universal speed in the >> aether. Bth Lorentz and Poincare (and maybe a few others) subsequently >> realised that this effectively made the aether redundant, in that it no >> longer played any part in further considerations. However, that did not >> mean it disappeared altogether. It was the fundamental medium for >> unifying light speeds. > > Henry, do you think this babble can change the fact that the second > postulate of SR is that the speed of light in vacuum is invariant? Speed relative to what? All speeds are relative. Why don't you just admit that I am right. I am merely telling you what everyone knows. Poincare invented Einstein's version of relativity even though he did not say so in those words. Here are the true and quite obvious facts. It was assumed that all light moved at c relative to an aether medium. To an observer at rest in the aether, light closed on a moving observer at c+v BUT because his rods and clocks were supposed to contract in the same proportion with absolute speed, he would always MEASURE light speed to be c. That is what Einstein's second postulate means. There is no need to mention any aether because its role is assumed. If all light moves at c in the medium and the contractions are valid, then all light will be measured as moving at c. By the same token, if the speed of Norwegian water rats was always u in the aether, every moving observer would always measure the speed of water rats to be u. Light is not special in that respect. Lg/Tg = constant. Unfortunately for Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein Paul B. and the rest of you dingleberries, there is NO aether and there are no LTs. >>> >>> The question is the consequences of the second postulate. >> >> Words do not cause physical effects. Only an idiot would believe so. > > This is in fact a very revealing statement. :-D > > Paul: A logical consequence of the second postulate of SR > is that there is no 'unifying medium'. > Ralph: Only an idiot would believe that word can cause physical > effects, so the logical consequence of the second postulate > cannot be that there is no 'unifying medium'. > > I have seen this down under upside down logic before: > > Paul: The inevitable logical consequence of the postulates > of SR is that simultaneity is relative. > Ralph: My faith is that simultaneity is absolute, > so relativity of simultaneity cannot be a logical > consequence of the postulates of SR. Paul, two clocks synched with a pointer attached to the ends of a spinning rod remain in the same synch no matter how they are moved. What is more, they will correctly measure light speed from a moving source to be c+v. >> THe second postulate is fraudulent and becasue it appeared to do away >> with he need for an aether made Eeinstein famous in the eyes of >> opportunist dingleberries. >> We know now that he was a plagiarising liar. > > Your opinion of the second postulate is utterly irrelevant > to what the logical consequences of the second postulate are. > > Your claim that the second postulate implies a 'unifying medium' > is a ridiculous claim, because the consequences of the second > postulate is the exact opposite. Crap. If an absolute medium is assumed along with the LTs, there is no need to mention the medium...but it is still vital to the theory. How else could the speed of all Norwegian water rats appear to be constant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FfKdnU0wtd4qb4_KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #381795 |
On 4/16/16 4/16/16 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: > two clocks synched with a pointer attached to the ends of a spinning rod > remain in the same synch no matter how they are moved. Only in your personal fantasy world. LITERALLY. In the world we inhabit, once a pair of clocks are synchronized, regardless of how they were synchronized, they will NOT "remain in the same synch no matter how they are moved". There are literally zillions of experiments that show zillions of ways that clocks can be moved that destroys their synchronization. Moreover, the synchronization of two clocks is NOT an "absolute" property -- there can be ways of looking at them that shows they are synchronized, and other ways of looking at them that show they are not synchronized (e.g. they can be synchronized in one inertial frame but not in some other frame). Your personal fantasies have no power to force the world to behave as you wish. I have no idea what you think you are doing, but is CERTAINLY is not science. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web