Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700
Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:29 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 04:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 19:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:06 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 02:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 07:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 21:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-22 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-17 06:56 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-18 08:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:51 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:30 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:55 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-20 06:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 08:59 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 06:51 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 04:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 11:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-24 07:37 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 04:26 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 22:14 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:36 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 03:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:46 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-01 18:26 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:04 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-03 07:05 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:52 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-04 05:20 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-05 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 20:34 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 07:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-06 22:15 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-08 13:07 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-09 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-09 06:53 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-10 01:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 00:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 06:50 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-10 06:16 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 19:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-10 13:23 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:39 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-25 07:55 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 03:35 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:19 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:37 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 18:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-19 07:45 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-16 23:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-28 20:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:18 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-29 04:08 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 22:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-30 08:38 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 05:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:21 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 19:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-16 03:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 13:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 16:44 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-14 18:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:52 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 22:04 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-16 12:25 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-16 06:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 15:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 19:41 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:53 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 16:50 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:39 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 12:57 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 08:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:41 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 12:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 12:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-22 13:45 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 04:16 -0700
Ignorant Raving Crackpot back to what he does best: shit eating "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:06 -0700
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 19:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YuydnenBkuC6OirKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390391 |
On 8/19/16 8/19/16 2:38 PM, RichD wrote: > GPS demonstrates > that c is invariant for observers on earth, moving > relatively to the satellites. No. Not even close. The GPS demonstrates that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame, which is the LOCALLY inertial frame centered on the earth (so it does not rotate with the planet, but does orbit the sun with it). When you don't understand how something like the GPS works, you cannot hope to make valid statements about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 16:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HImdnTM5qpYAFy7KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390130 |
On 8/16/16 8/16/16 - 2:09 PM, RichD wrote: > [...] At base your confusions stem from a lack of understanding about what science actually is. This experiment will test certain specific predictions of Special Relativity. That means I can use any and all aspects of SR to calculate what SR predicts for the measurements, and then compare to the actual measured values. The measurements will be of the difference in arrival times of the pulses at the detector at the center of the rod. All else is pure embroidery. Ultimately I use SR to predict that time difference, and compare to the measurement. (This is for the idealized calculation.) You want to know how the rod observer at the center knows that light travels isotropically at c/n in her frame. The answer, of course, is that SR predicts this -- that is ALL that is needed. Yes, this has indeed been tested, indirectly and directly, at many times in many ways, because the validity of SR has been extensively tested. But that is not really necessary.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np506j$1if2$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390130 |
On 8/16/2016 2:09 PM, RichD wrote: > On August 15, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> 2) The observer at the center knows that light travels isotropically at c/n, >> where n is the refractive index of the rod. > > Does he really know that? > n.b. I use 'know' in the scientific sense, not the > "Emperor's Clothes" sense - > > Please cite an experiment which: > 1) Occurs within a vehicle, moving uniformly relative to the earth, > 2) which contains an observer (instrument), > 3) a track, of length measured by the observer, in his frame, > 4) a starting gun, > 5) a finishing tape, > 6) a flashlight, > 7) timers which measure the light beam's dash across the track, > 8) the results of which are communicated to the scientist > outside the vehicle, fixed to the earth. > > A SPECIFIC experiment, which SPECIFICALLY performed > the operations described. Try, try, try, through a > SUPREME effort of willpower, to avoid hand waving, > "indirect" arguments, "Lorentz invariance", emperor's > clothes, rationalizations of technical difficulties, or > any such smoke screens. > > i.e. a DIRECT OBSERVATION of light velocity; > distance & time, you know? > > Since you're an honest man, unlike some others, I'm > sure I can rely on you for a reliable answer. > Though this seems like a sensible and direct way to do the measurement to you, it is a spectacularly unfit experimental proposal. You are requiring the use of instruments and devices which have neither the response time nor the precision to measure the outcome you desire. In other words, you may get an answer, but the uncertainty in that answer will be so large that your answer will be useless. In order to get the precision that is required, and in order to remove systematic effects and other sources of error, experimentalists have to become quite a bit cleverer. To the outside spectator, all of those trappings seem to obscure the result by making it overly complicated. But this is in fact the opposite of the truth -- that these measures are required to make the result more reliable and more precise. It's when outside spectators get befuddled by these complications that they start muttering "emperor's clothes" and "handwaving", because they have this passionate faith that the simplest approach is always the best. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57b61f9b$0$53469$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #390289 |
On 8/18/2016 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/16/2016 2:09 PM, RichD wrote: >> On August 15, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> 2) The observer at the center knows that light travels isotropically >>> at c/n, >>> where n is the refractive index of the rod. >> >> Does he really know that? >> n.b. I use 'know' in the scientific sense, not the >> "Emperor's Clothes" sense - >> >> Please cite an experiment which: >> 1) Occurs within a vehicle, moving uniformly relative to the earth, >> 2) which contains an observer (instrument), >> 3) a track, of length measured by the observer, in his frame, >> 4) a starting gun, >> 5) a finishing tape, >> 6) a flashlight, >> 7) timers which measure the light beam's dash across the track, >> 8) the results of which are communicated to the scientist >> outside the vehicle, fixed to the earth. >> >> A SPECIFIC experiment, which SPECIFICALLY performed >> the operations described. Try, try, try, through a >> SUPREME effort of willpower, to avoid hand waving, >> "indirect" arguments, "Lorentz invariance", emperor's >> clothes, rationalizations of technical difficulties, or >> any such smoke screens. >> >> i.e. a DIRECT OBSERVATION of light velocity; >> distance & time, you know? >> >> Since you're an honest man, unlike some others, I'm >> sure I can rely on you for a reliable answer. >> > > Though this seems like a sensible and direct way to do the measurement > to you, it is a spectacularly unfit experimental proposal. You are > requiring the use of instruments and devices which have neither the > response time nor the precision to measure the outcome you desire. In > other words, you may get an answer, but the uncertainty in that answer > will be so large that your answer will be useless. > > In order to get the precision that is required, and in order to remove > systematic effects and other sources of error, experimentalists have to > become quite a bit cleverer. To the outside spectator, all of those > trappings seem to obscure the result by making it overly complicated. > But this is in fact the opposite of the truth -- that these measures are > required to make the result more reliable and more precise. > > It's when outside spectators get befuddled by these complications that > they start muttering "emperor's clothes" and "handwaving", because they > have this passionate faith that the simplest approach is always the best. Don't you always trot out Occam's Razor to prove all your establishment theories, Boinker? Of course you do. So it's do as you say not as you do. Figures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np59tf$2i9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390298 |
On 8/18/2016 3:50 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/18/2016 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Though this seems like a sensible and direct way to do the measurement >> to you, it is a spectacularly unfit experimental proposal. You are >> requiring the use of instruments and devices which have neither the >> response time nor the precision to measure the outcome you desire. In >> other words, you may get an answer, but the uncertainty in that answer >> will be so large that your answer will be useless. >> >> In order to get the precision that is required, and in order to remove >> systematic effects and other sources of error, experimentalists have to >> become quite a bit cleverer. To the outside spectator, all of those >> trappings seem to obscure the result by making it overly complicated. >> But this is in fact the opposite of the truth -- that these measures are >> required to make the result more reliable and more precise. >> >> It's when outside spectators get befuddled by these complications that >> they start muttering "emperor's clothes" and "handwaving", because they >> have this passionate faith that the simplest approach is always the best. > > Don't you always trot out Occam's Razor to prove all your establishment > theories, Boinker? Of course you do. So it's do as you say not as you > do. Figures. > Occam's razor does not apply to experiments, Ben. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 23:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57b67f70$0$59740$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #390305 |
On 8/18/2016 5:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/18/2016 3:50 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/18/2016 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Though this seems like a sensible and direct way to do the measurement >>> to you, it is a spectacularly unfit experimental proposal. You are >>> requiring the use of instruments and devices which have neither the >>> response time nor the precision to measure the outcome you desire. In >>> other words, you may get an answer, but the uncertainty in that answer >>> will be so large that your answer will be useless. >>> >>> In order to get the precision that is required, and in order to remove >>> systematic effects and other sources of error, experimentalists have to >>> become quite a bit cleverer. To the outside spectator, all of those >>> trappings seem to obscure the result by making it overly complicated. >>> But this is in fact the opposite of the truth -- that these measures are >>> required to make the result more reliable and more precise. >>> >>> It's when outside spectators get befuddled by these complications that >>> they start muttering "emperor's clothes" and "handwaving", because they >>> have this passionate faith that the simplest approach is always the >>> best. >> >> Don't you always trot out Occam's Razor to prove all your establishment >> theories, Boinker? Of course you do. So it's do as you say not as you >> do. Figures. >> > > Occam's razor does not apply to experiments, Ben. > Boinker, you do not do experiments (unless you do some with wooden toys) You do science by Rhetorical combat. So you are trying to say that the simpler effective experiment is not the better one? Aside: I just can't let Boikers mixed up head pass. Boinker always argues by creating straw men, changing the subject and obfuscating all facts. Perfect example above. I said, "Don't you always trot out Occam's Razor to prove all your establishment theories, Boinker?" And immediately you don't start talking about your theories or how you "prove" them, instead you switch to the subject of "experiments"! Coherent logic isn't something you do, is it Boinker. No wonder you are a professional debater and amateur scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 07:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np6umi$2fo$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390337 |
On 8/18/2016 10:39 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/18/2016 5:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/18/2016 3:50 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/18/2016 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Though this seems like a sensible and direct way to do the measurement >>>> to you, it is a spectacularly unfit experimental proposal. You are >>>> requiring the use of instruments and devices which have neither the >>>> response time nor the precision to measure the outcome you desire. In >>>> other words, you may get an answer, but the uncertainty in that answer >>>> will be so large that your answer will be useless. >>>> >>>> In order to get the precision that is required, and in order to remove >>>> systematic effects and other sources of error, experimentalists have to >>>> become quite a bit cleverer. To the outside spectator, all of those >>>> trappings seem to obscure the result by making it overly complicated. >>>> But this is in fact the opposite of the truth -- that these measures >>>> are >>>> required to make the result more reliable and more precise. >>>> >>>> It's when outside spectators get befuddled by these complications that >>>> they start muttering "emperor's clothes" and "handwaving", because they >>>> have this passionate faith that the simplest approach is always the >>>> best. >>> >>> Don't you always trot out Occam's Razor to prove all your establishment >>> theories, Boinker? Of course you do. So it's do as you say not as you >>> do. Figures. >>> >> >> Occam's razor does not apply to experiments, Ben. >> > Boinker, you do not do experiments (unless you do some with wooden toys) > You do science by Rhetorical combat. > > So you are trying to say that the simpler effective experiment is not > the better one? Simpler is usually not more effective in experiment. That was what I was recounting earlier. Don't play world games. > > Aside: I just can't let Boikers mixed up head pass. Boinker always > argues by creating straw men, changing the subject and obfuscating all > facts. Perfect example above. I said, "Don't you always trot out Occam's > Razor to prove all your establishment theories, Boinker?" And > immediately you don't start talking about your theories or how you > "prove" them, instead you switch to the subject of "experiments"! > Coherent logic isn't something you do, is it Boinker. No wonder you are > a professional debater and amateur scientist. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <novlv0$l97$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390067 |
On 8/15/2016 12:25 PM, kenseto wrote: > How do you know that they left their respective ends at different time in the > rod frame and that they left their respective end at the same time in the lab > frame. I think that you are just making assumptions to support your claims. That has already been described by Tom in great detail, and discussed by others in great detail. That's exactly what the experimental design addresses. Perhaps you could go back to the beginning of the threads where this was discussed and read up on it again. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19c47c63-ef43-4a2d-b290-30bc8ce3dbec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390052 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:52:38 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > But the light pulses DONT take different times to travel from > their respective ends to the (center) detector; they take the > *same time* (all this wrt the rod frame). That depends on your choice of time coordinates for the rod frame. See below. > Since they take the same time , but dont arrive together, that means > (in the rod frame) they left their respective ends at different times, yet > in the lab frame, they left simultaneously. That is all what Tom has > set out to measure. Call it RoS or not, wont change the (expected) > result of his exp. As mentioned previously, the first-order linear Sagnac effect (which in this setup yields a time difference of vL/c^2) obviously demonstrates relativity of simultaneity for the class of coordinate systems defined such that the speed of light is c in terms of each coordinate system, but this is tautological, and would be true even if physics was not Lorentz invariant. If this is all that Tom has set out to measure (i.e., the first-order linear Sagnac effect), then it is already measured zillions of times every day by off-the shelf devices, GPS timing, radio signal timing, etc., to very high precision. Note that this is not a uniquely relativistic effect. On the other hand, if Tom wants to demonstrate the unique non-tautological relativity of simultaneity that characterizes special relativity, referring to the class of space and time coordinate systems in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first approximation, then he needs to employ one of the methods described previously, all of which involve quantifying second-order effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d489c323-5fa8-4d87-a0e6-17220db08a2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390052 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 17:52:38 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > > but showing that light takes different times to traverse different > > path lengths is not one of them. That’s the substantive disagreement. > > But the light pulses DONT take different times to travel from their respective ends to the (center) detector; they take the *same time* (all this wrt the rod frame). Since they take the same time , but dont arrive together, that means (in the rod frame) they left their respective ends at different times, yet in the lab frame, they left simultaneously. That is all what Tom has set out to measure. Call it RoS or not, wont change the (expected) result of his exp. Indeed. There is no difference between the stupid relative simultaneity, and the lightspeed variability. t' = k(t-xv/c^2) => r' = ct' = k(ct-xv/c) => and now: r' = c't => c' = ... = t'/c simply, because with the: t = inv. it's the same.. in any practical sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gqmdnYqKjdTlrCzKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389988 |
On 8/14/16 8/14/16 2:25 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > [...] > [My experiment] demonstrates nothing but the Sagnac effect. You cannot see the forest for the weeds. You are focusing on a purely instrumentation effect THAT THE INSTRUMENT CANCELS. The principle of the measurement is to generate simultaneous events in one inertial frame (the lab) and measure their time difference in an inertial frame moving relative to it (the rod). I'll describe it that way, and nobody -- ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- will be thinking "Sagnac". When I describe the instrument used to make the measurement, as usual I'll discuss noise, backgrounds, and instrumentation effects, and how they are minimized or avoided. One background is the Sagnac effect, introduced due to the design of the instrument; I'll point out that the optical processing cancels it completely, leaving RoS. And we KNOW that in this experiment the Sagnac effect is purely an instrumentation effect, because it depends on how I choose to route the fibers (if I have space for it, I may include an appendix showing this, similar to my recent post with 3 diagrams). I'll probably include a brief mention of the "fiber conveyor" experiments, primarily to discuss how the presence of the optical processing makes this experiment quite different from them (it not only cancels their major systematic error from fiber flexing, it also cancels their signal). I have no idea why you think the potential presence of the Sagnac effect in the instrument somehow compromises the measurement, because identifying and dealing with such backgrounds is business as usual in experimental physics. The Sagnac effect does NOT affect the measurement, because the instrument cancels it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7adacb3f-acb6-4703-93e2-8735e765be71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390009 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:05:35 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > The principle of the measurement is to generate simultaneous > events in one inertial frame (the lab) and measure their time > difference in an inertial frame moving relative to it (the rod). Right, that's precisely isomorphic to emitting radio pulses from San Francisco and New York simultaneously in the ECI frame and measuring the time difference when they arrive at the mid-point. This is a well-known phenomenon, due to the different optical path lengths, because the country has moved sideways a little bit (in the ECI) during the transit of the light. It is called the Sagnac effect. > I'll describe it that way, and nobody -- > ABSOLUTELY NOBODY -- > will be thinking "Sagnac". I think any competent person who reviews your proposal will recognize immediately that it is demonstrating nothing but the Sagnac effect, i.e., the fact that light takes different times to traverse the different optical path lengths in the two directions. > I have no idea why you think the potential presence > of the Sagnac effect in the instrument somehow > compromises the measurement... I sense that we are not communicating at all. It almost sounds as if you think I'm talking about the Sagnac effect due to the rotation of the Earth, or some other tiny effect. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying the main time difference that you are measuring, the one that you think shows the relativity of simultaneity, is actually just due to the change in the optical path lengths of the rod in the two directions caused by the linear motion of the rod in the lab frame. You've just taken a fiber optic gyro and unwound it into a straight rod, which you translate instead of rotate, but the effect on the optical path lengths in the two directions is identical. You see, I'm not talking about a little noise, I'm saying you are completely misinterpreting your signal. The time difference you measure when you have synchronized the pulses in the lab frame is nothing other than the Sagnac effect of the translating rod (which, remember, has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation, etc). We measure this time difference every day for eastbound and westbound radio signals, synced in the ECI (which is the equivalent of your "lab frame"). If you cancel this effect, there will be no remaining time difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <noti9h$1q06$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390017 |
On 15/08/16 17:05, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: We measure this time difference every day for eastbound and westbound > radio signals, .... There is no such difference. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <w5ednZHnwqVRsS7KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #390088 |
On 8/15/16 8/15/16 - 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: > On 15/08/16 17:05, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > We measure this time difference every day for eastbound and westbound >> radio signals, .... > > There is no such difference. Leave it to Wilson to supply comic relief, and demonstrate his complete ignorance of the discussion and the underlying physics. Of course there is such a difference, for the situation dancouriann described, which was sending the signals "synced in the ECI". Hint: the earth rotates. The ECI does not. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <np051d$1al7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390116 |
On 17/08/16 01:10, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/15/16 8/15/16 - 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote: >> On 15/08/16 17:05, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: >> We measure this time difference every day for eastbound and westbound >>> radio signals, .... >> >> There is no such difference. > > Leave it to Wilson to supply comic relief, and demonstrate his complete > ignorance of the discussion and the underlying physics. > > Of course there is such a difference, for the situation dancouriann > described, which was sending the signals "synced in the ECI". > > Hint: the earth rotates. The ECI does not. The Earth also moves relative to lots of objects and so does its ECI frame. Why then should the ECI frame cause light to move at c+v relative to its own source rather than at c....which is what you are claiming? How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant it leaves its source? Why doesn't the light move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame and not Earth's ECI frame? I don't think you have a clue.... > > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <np1qjg$t17$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #390153 |
"HGW." <hw@....> writes: >On 17/08/16 01:10, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Of course there is such a difference, for the situation dancouriann >> described, which was sending the signals "synced in the ECI". >> >> Hint: the earth rotates. The ECI does not. >The Earth also moves relative to lots of objects and so does its ECI >frame. Why then should the ECI frame cause light to move at c+v relative >to its own source rather than at c....which is what you are claiming? It doesn't, Ralph. >How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant it leaves >its source? It doesn't, nor does it need to. >Why doesn't the light move at c relative to the SUN's ECI >frame and not Earth's ECI frame? It does both, Ralph. Light moves at c relative to *every* inertial frame. The Sun's ECI, the earth's ECI, you, me, etc. Too bad you are stuck with your dirty old BaThwater...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np1va3$ddv$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #390191 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:np1qjg$t17$1@pcls7.std.com... |It does both, Ralph. Light moves at c relative to *every* inertial frame. I.e. never, poor idiot, even according to your insane Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <np2o67$mgn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390191 |
On 17/08/16 23:59, Michael Moronlike wrote: > "HGW." <hw@....> writes: > >> On 17/08/16 01:10, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> Of course there is such a difference, for the situation >>> dancouriann described, which was sending the signals "synced in >>> the ECI". >>> >>> Hint: the earth rotates. The ECI does not. > >> The Earth also moves relative to lots of objects and so does its >> ECI frame. Why then should the ECI frame cause light to move at c+v >> relative to its own source rather than at c....which is what you >> are claiming? > > It doesn't, Ralph. > >> How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant it >> leaves its source? > > It doesn't, nor does it need to. Of course it needs to. IF SR'S EXPLANATION IS CORRECT. SR says the beams in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror (source). So how do they know they are going around a circle and not straight ahead? >> Why doesn't the light move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame and >> not Earth's ECI frame? > > It does both, Henry. Light moves at c relative to *every* inertial > frame. The Sun's ECI, the earth's ECI, you, me, etc. What a moron!!! ...a very sad example of the damage indoctrination can do to a brain... > Too bad you are stuck with your dirty old BaThwater... BaTh is well and truly here to stay and very clean too. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <np3k2v$a13$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #390214 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 17/08/16 23:59, Michael Moronlike wrote: >>> Why doesn't the light move at c relative to the SUN's ECI frame and >>> not Earth's ECI frame? >> >> It does both, Henry. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge! Ralph, you really are incapable of learning, aren't you Ralph Rabbidge! > Light moves at c relative to *every* inertial >> frame. The Sun's ECI, the earth's ECI, you, me, etc. >What a moron!!! ...a very sad example of the damage indoctrination can >do to a brain... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you have managed to indoctrinate yourself, haven't you, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not only can't you learn not to mess with what I write, you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) can't even look at the physics posts that Paul Andersen has been nice enough to post for you, Ralph. Ralph, that is how indoctrinated you are, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are just like those 6000 year old earth creationists who refuse to look at dinosaur fossils, and for the same reason, Ralph. Ralph, you BELIEVE in your religion of BaThwater, Ralph, despite all the scientific evidence (which you refuse to look at), Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. And Ralph, somehow you managed to indoctrinate yourself, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np4btd$8he$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390214 |
On 18.08.2016 00:24, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/08/16 23:59, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW." <hw@....> writes: >> >>> How does light know what the ECI frame is doing at the instant it >>> leaves its source? >> >> It doesn't, nor does it need to. > > Of course it needs to. IF SR'S EXPLANATION IS CORRECT. SR says the beams > in a Sagnac interferometer move at c+v and c-v relative to the 45 mirror > (source). So how do they know they are going > around a circle and not straight ahead? SR say the speed of light in vacuum is _invariant_, Ralph. That means that the speed of light is c when measured in the ECI frame, AND it is c when measured in the inertial frame which is instantly comoving with the source (mirror). The naive idea that light has to adjust its speed to be c relative to an arbitrary inertial frame, and that it therefore not can be c relative to two different inertial frames is simply wrong. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean that it is impossible. You can kick and scream and insist that Nature MUST behave as you think it should, but there is only one way to find how Nature behaves: Experiments! Whether you like it or not, experimental evidence confirms that the speed of light is invariant: 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 Ralph, you can't make the experimental evidence go away by choosing not to 'believe' it. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web