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 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 11:06 +1100 |
| Subject | This is How it Happened...Summary |
| Message-ID | <ndke2h$1b27$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Historical Overview. The behaviour of light and electromagnetic radiation has been a source of intrigue to physicists for centuries and one of the most productive areas of research but in spite of the well documented achievements of the past, many of the most basic questions remain unanswered. In particular, little or nothing is known about light's state during transit, which is essentially where it exists during its entire life. Early thinkers like Descartes and Newton loosely regarded light as being particulate in nature but as its wavelike properties became more apparent, so did its similarity with the propagation of sound in air. Over time, it became fashionable to regard light as a traveling wave in an invisible medium, labeled 'aether', which occupied the whole of space and defined an absolute reference frame...and that view is still held by many. Light was originally believed to travel with infinite speed but in 1676, Ole Roemer of Denmark performed intricate observations of the eclipsing of Jupiter's moons to produce a sufficiently accurate value of light speed to show that it was definitely finite and certainly much higher than anything commonly experienced on Earth. Over several subsequent centuries, what was to become the 'classical wave theory' emerged as a reasonably successful tool for explaining diffraction, refraction and most other optical phenomena associated with light. Theories based on the aether principle continued to evolve over several centuries despite the fact that all attempts to prove the existence of such a medium inevitably failed. A common line of investigation was to look for variations in light speed as the Earth rotated on its axis or moved around its solar orbit but experiments of that nature required timing devices that were many orders of magnitude more sensitive and stable than any available at the time. During the nineteenth century and with the development of superior techniques and equipment, the task of establishing a more accurate figure for light speed attracted much attention. The most successful researchers were Hippolyte Fizeau and Leon Foucault who devised ingenious experiments involving 'toothed wheels' and rotating mirrors to produce values that were very close to today's official figure. Later modifications by Albert Michelson around 1880 improved the accuracy to within 0.01 percent of the modern value but were still insufficient to correlate light speed with any movement of the Earth. Aether theory had been previously supported by the brilliant work of James Clerk Maxwell who in 1865 produced a set of equations describing the mutual induction between electric and magnetic fields and which predicted that light would indeed travel through space at a speed that was identical to the established figure. All light in the universe was therefore deemed to move at precisely the same speed 'c' with respect to the absolute reference frame provided by the aether. That theory was thrown into chaos however in 1887, when Michelson and colleague Edward Morley overcame the timing problems with an ingenious rotatable interferometer and performed one of physics' most famous experiments. Without going into detail, the experiment failed to produce the anticipated result and it was that very fact which sparked the revolution in physics that followed. It seemed that no absolute reference frame for light existed. The unexpected MMX result became a hot topic and the controversy and speculation which followed engendered a novel suggestion attributed to physicists Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald. They reasoned that the electric bonds between the constituents of matter might be sensitive to absolute movement such that the lengths of all objects were physically shortened with such movement. Further consideration by what came to be known as the Lorentz Ether Theory ( LET) suggested that mass and time were also affected in somewhat similar fashion. Thus, if distances and time intervals physically contracted in the same proportion, all measurements of light speed (dimensions L/T) would produce the same value, c, irrespective of the observer's own absolute movement. If correct, the inference was that a determination of the Earth's absolute speed using light would never be possible...and so the aether concept remained alive. Others were not so receptive of this theory, particularly after the discovery of the photo-electric effect, which emphasized the particulate nature of light and rekindled support for the old 'Corpuscular' or 'Emission' Theories. These likened light 'quanta' to bullets fired from a gun...but that theory was also seriously challenged by an apparent incompatibility with the wave aspects of light and with observed behaviour of binary stars by Dutch Astronomer Willem de Sitter (but see below). The stable and uniform 'aether medium' envisaged by Lorentz, combined with the contraction principle did indeed provide a plausible physical basis for the source independence and apparent constancy of measured light speed. Accordingly, all light moved at c relative to the aether and every experiment designed to measure its speed would produce the same result. On further consideration, the theory showed that the way observers with different speeds regarded each other's properties was a function of their relative rather than their absolute speeds. That being so, it followed...but not obviously...that the physical existence of an absolute reference frame was inconsequential and that an entirely mathematical approach could possibly achieve the same result. Lorentz's groundwork had paved the way for someone to discover that natural sequel. Whether or not Einstein worked alone to formulate his subsequent 'Special Relativity' (SR) may never be known but he was the first to actually publish the idea as a complete theory. In his 1905 paper, he seemingly obviated the need for an absolute reference frame by effectively expressing Lorentz's conclusions in terms of two postulates and then deriving a radical new geometry that was consistent with them. This was an ingenious proposal which temporarily put an end to arguments as to whether or not the aether existed by effectively making it redundant. He simply declared by postulate that no preferred frame existed (P1) and then replaced Lorentz's conclusion, namely that, 'light speed would always be measured as having the value c', with another postulate (P2), which in essence, quote, “ allows the reference frame of any observer to be declared 'stationary' such that any ray of light moves.... (in that frame).......with the determined velocity 'c' whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or moving source”. This emphasized the importance of relative speeds and more or less implied that each and every observer was surrounded by a kind of 'personal aether' in which light always moves at precisely c irrespective of source movement. Naturally the theory was greeted with much skepticism since it represented a radical departure from the traditional Newtonian view and had no obvious supporting evidence. Because its equations were identical to those of LET, it appeared to be nothing more than a variation of that theory, according to which measured light speed would indeed always equal c, irrespective of source or observer movement. What has never been fully appreciated is that both LET and SR fundamentally require and presuppose the existence of an all-encompassing aether medium that unifies the speed of all light emitted by differently moving sources. It is fundamental to their whole structure. (Einstein admitted later that without an absolute aether, his theory would collapse.). However LET and SR differ fundamentally in that Lorentz regarded length and time as being absolute in nature but varying with absolute speed whilst Einstein introduced the novel concept that these quantities were products of measurement only and that their values were entirely frame dependent. They contracted with movement relative to the 'personal aether frame' of any observer just as they did in Lorentz's 'single aether' and according to the same maths. However, whilst LET was based on the notion that a rod physically shrinks and a clock physically slows with absolute movement, SR was obliged to accept that nothing actually happens to either during a speed change because an increase in speed relative to one observer would mean a decrease in speed relative to an infinite number of others. Thus, according to SR, a metre rod or a clock can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will not physically change in any way but their fundamental properties, length and time, remain entirely observer dependent. That is in direct contrast with the notion that the ends of a rod define an absolute and universal spatial interval or that the period of an oscillator defines an absolute time interval. To account for energy conservation, it appeared that the mass of an object must also increase with relative speed. It is the difficulty of understanding Einstein's claims and the questionable logic employed that still gives rise to much controversy on public media. To justify his claim mathematically, Einstein devised a 'spacetime' concept in which TIME effectively became just another spatial dimension but one that existed in the imaginary plane with a 'scaling factor 'c'. What followed was a series of ingenious and impressive four dimensional space-time considerations in which movement ceased to exist and the need for an absolute spatial frame to unify light speeds became hidden in a maze of confusing 'logic'. The end result was a unique collection of inter-related and consistent equations that rendered his second postulate seemingly viable. That is not surprising since 'spacetime' was devised on the assumption that it was correct. In reality, all he had done was rediscover Lorentz's mathematics by approaching that theory via the back door. The idea of linking space and time graphically was not new but Einstein's 4D version departed considerably from the Euclidean model in that its axes were distorted to accommodate the postulated constant light speed. Because of the very high speed of light, both SR and LET have been extremely difficult to either verify or refute. That is still the case and much of the claimed 'supporting evidence' for either is very much open to interpretation and is dubious at best. In the absence of an absolute frame, light has only one speed reference, its own source...and all evidence suggests that every form of electromagnetic radiation initially departs from its source at speed c (although exceptions to that rule should not be ruled out). Without an all-pervading light carrying medium, the very idea that light from all sources in the universe should immediately find a 'common speed' verges on the nonsensical, particularly a speed of fixed value relative to an insignificant little planet called 'Earth', that might not have even existed at the time of emission. Source independence essentially means that if two totally remote and differently moving sources emit light pulses in the same direction, the initial spatial relationship between those pulses remains forever constant. No observers or measurements are involved in that statement. Without a physical cause, the idea is ludicrous. The fact that all forms of EM radiation take time to go from A to B gives them a conventional speed and all speeds must be frame dependent by definition. Both LET and SR attempted to circumvent that principle with the concept 'closing speed', according to which a third observer will calculate that light moving at c from a source will indeed 'close on' a moving observer at speed c+v but that the observer will always measure the speed of the arriving light to be c. However, whilst Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an absolute frame without having any need to mention it. If any aspect of Einstein's theory is found to be correct, that would almost certainly imply that an aether-like regions do exist, even if not necessarily on the universal scale envisaged by LET proponents.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4c10237-4b9f-4d64-bf2b-3f14e9670736@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380588 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > Hysterical Overview. "God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He created historians." -- Anonymous
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 13:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dm639jFdlneU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #380588 |
On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: > However, whilst > Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed > unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. > Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an > absolute frame without having any need to mention it. It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, because the theory has no need of one. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndlpv8$1710$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380590 |
On 3/31/2016 9:04 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: >> However, whilst >> Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed >> unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. >> Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an >> absolute frame without having any need to mention it. > > It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, > because the theory has no need of one. > > Sylvia. > Henry's position is that even if relativity doesn't mention any absolute frame, it's assumed anyway. His position is that even if relativity explicitly and repeatedly denies the existence of an absolute reference frame, then it's assumed anyway. Henry knows this because (a) he considers it impossible that any theory would not acknowledge an absolute reference frame, and (b) he can peer deeper into things to see what other people do not see. Henry is, of course, both an idiot and a troll who does not hesitate to say anything that amuses him. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb06d285-5344-471c-b8cd-6d3e8d13542b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380621 |
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/31/2016 9:04 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/04/2016 11:06 AM, HGW wrote: > >> However, whilst > >> Lorentz provided a plausible physical mechanism for light speed > >> unification, Einstein's theory lacks any mention of such a feature. > >> Being entirely mathematical, it merely assumes the existence of an > >> absolute frame without having any need to mention it. > > > > It does no such thing. It makes no reference to an absolute frame, > > because the theory has no need of one. > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Henry's position is that even if relativity doesn't mention any absolute > frame, it's assumed anyway. have the same math.o assumption is needed.....an inertial frame in SR is a location in the ether and different inertial frames means different locations in the stationary ether. That means that both SR and LET used the ether frame to derive their math and that's why SR and LET have the same math. > His position is that even if relativity > explicitly and repeatedly denies the existence of an absolute reference > frame, then it's assumed anyway. An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in the stationary ether. >Henry knows this because (a) he > considers it impossible that any theory would not acknowledge an > absolute reference frame, and (b) he can peer deeper into things to see > what other people do not see. Henry is, of course, both an idiot and a > troll who does not hesitate to say anything that amuses him. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 04:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlshk4$c0r$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387492 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in >the stationary ether. Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at all!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <777c60c8-0df4-465c-9716-b5cbc15cf805@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387501 |
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me > >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in > >the stationary ether. > > Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference > frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial > reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative > to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference > frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! > This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at > all! You are wrong....the second inertial frame is the one that is doing all the moving. The ether is stationary and the first inertial frame is a specific location in the stationary ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0kvo$47g$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387561 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me >> >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in >> >the stationary ether. >> >> Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference >> frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial >> reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative >> to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference >> frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! >> This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at >> all! >You are wrong....the second inertial frame is the one that is doing all the >moving. The ether is stationary and the first inertial frame is a specific >location in the stationary ether. Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74b9bfbb-5afc-4846-8349-ad5a4385371f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387591 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me > >> >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in > >> >the stationary ether. > >> > >> Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference > >> frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial > >> reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative > >> to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference > >> frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! > >> This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at > >> all! > > >You are wrong....the second inertial frame is the one that is doing all the > >moving. The ether is stationary and the first inertial frame is a specific > >location in the stationary ether. > > Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I > just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another > name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at > 0.999c in this second inertial cframe! How can the second inertial frame be > another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? No it is the second inertial frame that is moving at -9999c in the ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0ut9$j89$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387598 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I >> just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another >> name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at >> 0.999c in this second inertial cframe! How can the second inertial frame be >> another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? >No it is the second inertial frame that is moving at -9999c in the ether. This verifies what Odd recently posted. You simply don't know what a reference frame is, if you make a statement like that. BY DEFINITION, a reference frame is stationary relative to itself. Motion is relative. You can't state B is moving, but you can state B is moving relative to A. Theory of Relativity, get it? And if an object is stationary in Reference Frame A, and Reference Frame B is defined as moving at 0.999c relative to A, than by simple translation, that object stationary in A is moving at -0.999c in Frame B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f38310a-2690-413f-ac35-1a79145389b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387591 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me > >> >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in > >> >the stationary ether. > >> > >> Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference > >> frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial > >> reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative > >> to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference > >> frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! > >> This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at > >> all! > > >You are wrong....the second inertial frame is the one that is doing all the > >moving. The ether is stationary and the first inertial frame is a specific > >location in the stationary ether. > > Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I > just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another > name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at > 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be > another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? Idiot....the ether is not moving the second inertial frame is doing the moving. You ( the second inertial frame) falsely assumes that the second inertial frame is at rest and the ether is doing the moving. Also in IRT relative velocity between the ether and the second inertial frame is the vector difference of their absolute motions and since every location of the ether is in a state of rest then the observed relative velocity is due to the second inertial frame's absolute motion in the ether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0rdl$t8l$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387607 |
On 7/11/2016 2:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot....the ether is not moving the second inertial frame is doing the moving. Ken, you said ALL inertial frames are different locations in the ether frame. For the second inertial frame that is moving at 0.9999c with respect to the ether, what is that different location? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0vho$j89$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387607 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I >> just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another >> name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at >> 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be >> another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? >Idiot....the ether is not moving the second inertial frame is doing the moving. That makes no sense. A frame is DEFINED as stationary relative to itself. Anyway, even if the second inertial reference frame is somehow "moving", that very statement refutes your claim an inertial reference frame is just the aether frame. It's not. According to you, it's "moving"! >You ( the second inertial frame) falsely assumes that the second inertial >frame is at rest That's part of the definition! > and the ether is doing the moving. Relative to the second frame it has to be, since I defined the second frame as moving relative to the first frame, which by YOUR definition the aether is stationary in it! > Also in IRT We are not discussing failed alternate theories. We're discussing SR here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3898e937-c471-43c0-aae4-88d57eacff74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387591 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:07:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >An inertial frame is just another name for the ether. If not you tell me > >> >the difference in properties between an inertial frame and a location in > >> >the stationary ether. > >> > >> Simple. Assume the existence of an aether. Select an inertial reference > >> frame where this aether is stationary. Now select a second inertial > >> reference frame which is moving at a constant velocity of 0.999c relative > >> to the first frame. We find that, in this second inertial reference > >> frame, the aether is definitely NOT stationary; it is moving at 0.999c! > >> This second inertial frame is certainly NOT equivalent to the aether at > >> all! > > >You are wrong....the second inertial frame is the one that is doing all the > >moving. The ether is stationary and the first inertial frame is a specific > >location in the stationary ether. > > Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I > just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another > name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at > 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be > another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm0vov$j89$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387610 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I >> just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another >> name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at >> 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be >> another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? >Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. No, if it is "not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether" then YOUR claim "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether" is refuted since by that it is not possible to have an inertial reference frame. Yet I can create inertial reference frames all day long!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be8205af-dc22-4890-8fbb-54c95d3847b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387620 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Ken, you claimed "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether." I > >> just gave you an example of an inertial frame that definitely is NOT another > >> name for the aether. The second inertial frame. The aether is moving at > >> 0.999c in this second inertial frame! How can the second inertial frame be > >> another name for the aether if the aether is moving at 0.999c in it? > > >Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. > > No, if it is "not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether" > then YOUR claim "An inertial frame is just another name for the ether" is > refuted since by that it is not possible to have an inertial reference frame. > Yet I can create inertial reference frames all day long! You claimed that you can create an inertial frame all day long....but there is no such inertial frame exists on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5680$kg2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388330 |
On 7/24/2016 10:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > You claimed that you can create an inertial frame all day long....but there is no such inertial frame exists on earth. You keep repeating this lie. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5gg2$15pc$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388351 |
On 7/25/2016 9:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/24/2016 10:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >> You claimed that you can create an inertial frame all day long....but >> there is no such inertial frame exists on earth. > > You keep repeating this lie. > You claim there is no inertial frame on earth. This is wrong. You claim there is no inertial frame on earth, because you think an inertial frame has to be free of gravity. This is also wrong. You claim there is no inertial frame on earth, because you think no objects can accelerate in an inertial frame. This is also wrong. You don't know what "inertial frame" means. It's no wonder you make all these wrong claims about them. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm89j4$1htp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387610 |
On 7/11/2016 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. Oh dear. Then what about all your papers that purport to be experimental proposals to measure an object's absolute motion with respect to the ether? Ken, you do realize, don't you, that you're babbling contradictory nonsense, and that the only reason why people are talking to you at all is to watch you say stupid and contradictory things? And I guess you don't mind that? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nm8cfn$ik0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #387758 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 7/11/2016 2:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Correction: It is not possible to measure the speed of an object wrt the ether. So your assumed gedanken failed. >Ken, you do realize, don't you, that you're babbling contradictory >nonsense, and that the only reason why people are talking to you at all >is to watch you say stupid and contradictory things? And I guess you >don't mind that? Kookwatching is fun. Thank you Ken for providing this free entertainment!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web