Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393284 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 237 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 12:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 13:42 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 14:56 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-23 13:09 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 17:19 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 04:01 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:07 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:53 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 17:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-24 22:12 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:13 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-25 11:55 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 12:43 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 22:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:39 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 11:38 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-28 15:18 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-29 02:47 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-29 09:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:34 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-30 09:41 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 04:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-01 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:24 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-02 00:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:28 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:14 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:36 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 09:00 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 08:51 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 10:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:53 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:26 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 10:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:57 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-06 11:09 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 05:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:18 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:44 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:45 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:10 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 08:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 10:14 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 13:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 07:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 07:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:42 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:26 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:29 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-30 03:13 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:23 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:53 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 11:37 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:44 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-05 12:02 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:54 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:59 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:32 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 02:24 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:59 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Beck Muller <beckm@karloviccenter.org> - 2016-10-17 19:32 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:21 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 09:25 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:10 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 09:37 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:07 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:35 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 10:04 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:25 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 09:56 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:40 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:21 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 16:09 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 00:02 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 14:44 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 09:19 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:15 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-09 19:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:37 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 10:03 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:55 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-06 11:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:49 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-07 14:46 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 06:28 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 19:27 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 01:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-19 20:12 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 23:33 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 02:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:11 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:44 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 04:22 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 11:03 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-24 15:06 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 05:57 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-25 09:59 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 23:13 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:03 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 05:58 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:13 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-23 07:04 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:16 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:04 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:32 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-09-22 07:37 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-22 20:01 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:27 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:11 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:04 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:25 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:31 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:28 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:51 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 11:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 19:23 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:20 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:31 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:59 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 05:48 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:14 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:05 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 10:45 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:30 +1000
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:32 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:31 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:21 +0200
Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 15:05 -0700
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dcab2fe-99b8-4f2e-8c60-69facd079468@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396107 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 11:56:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > 1)I can't have the evidence, for the reasons > > > You've mentioned. I have no choice, I have to > > > assume. > > > 2)Why not? > > > > > If you make an assumption about the synchronisation of the clocks, then > > that assumption contaminates the results of the experiments. Indeed, the > > assumption gets carried over into any other experiment that relies on > > this one giving the correct results. > > > > It's not a useful way of finding out how the universe works. > > mlwo seemed to have trouble understanding how (2) could contaminate the results > of the experiment. I don't have any trouble with understanding, how assumptions affect the result of experiments. Rather, all of you have this problem. That's why you believe your Shit is experimentally provided and supported.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f8388b7-7a9f-49b1-b667-7f4d53c9a768@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396096 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 2:58:03 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > > >> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just > >> assuming the result. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: > > just use a radar. > > > > But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, > > so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. > > > > The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one > needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one > from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from > the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are > essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and > sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving > them apart. > > In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals > propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. > > In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain > synchronised when they are moved apart. These are poor excuses. Two adjunction and synchronized clocks move slowly in the opposite directions.....these two clocks will remain synchronous. You need to answer the question: Why is there no attempt to perform an OWLS experiment in the past 100 years?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 03:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu868u$u3h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396120 |
On 20/10/16 00:38, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 2:58:03 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik >>> Sylvia Else >>> >>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. >>>> You're just assuming the result. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: >>> just use a radar. >>> >>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, so you >>> should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. >>> >> >> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it >> one needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and >> subtract one from the other to determine the transit time. But >> subtracting one from the other only makes sense if the clocks are >> synchronised. There are essentially two ways of synchronising >> clocks - keeping them apart and sending signals between them, or >> bringing them together and then moving them apart. >> >> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals >> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both >> directions. >> >> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain >> synchronised when they are moved apart. > > These are poor excuses. Two adjunction and synchronized clocks move > slowly in the opposite directions.....these two clocks will remain > synchronous. > > You need to answer the question: Why is there no attempt to perform > an OWLS experiment in the past 100 years? In the first instance, there is no needs to actually measure OWLS. It is a relatively simple matter to COMPARE light speeds from differently moving sources. That kind of experiment requires NO clocks. Having thusly found two light signals which DO move at different speeds, we then can forget all about the name Einstein and just assume light travels at c relative to its source and c+v relative to an approaching observer. Physics can then start again from where it left off 110 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu8chp$i0o$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396133 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 20/10/16 00:38, kenseto wrote: >> These are poor excuses. Two adjunction and synchronized clocks move >> slowly in the opposite directions.....these two clocks will remain >> synchronous. >> >> You need to answer the question: Why is there no attempt to perform >> an OWLS experiment in the past 100 years? >In the first instance, there is no needs to actually measure OWLS. >It is a relatively simple matter to COMPARE light speeds from >differently moving sources. Why yes it is, Ralph. It has been done many, many times, Ralph. Guess what, Ralph? Every single time the speed is measured as being c! >Having thusly found two light signals which DO move at different speeds, Ralph, as you know, this has never happened! >Physics can then start again from where it left off 110 years ago. Ralph, you want to go back to a world without computers (much less a GPS), where cars were rare and expensive and only went 20 mph and so many other ordinary things of today didn't exist at all?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 20:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nua147$1gs9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396143 |
On 20/10/16 05:03, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> You need to answer the question: Why is there no attempt to perform >>> an OWLS experiment in the past 100 years? > >> In the first instance, there is no needs to actually measure OWLS. >> It is a relatively simple matter to COMPARE light speeds from >> differently moving sources. > > Why yes it is, Henry. It has been done many, many times, Henry. Guess > what? Every single time the speed is measured as being c! This guy has again proves how stupid he is. It seems he enjoys making a fool of himself. He thinks that light speed COMPARISON experiments produce a value of OWLS. ...no wonder there are so many Irish jokes going around...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuanep$v37$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396191 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 20/10/16 05:03, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> You need to answer the question: Why is there no attempt to perform >>>> an OWLS experiment in the past 100 years? >> >>> In the first instance, there is no needs to actually measure OWLS. >>> It is a relatively simple matter to COMPARE light speeds from >>> differently moving sources. >> >> Why yes it is, Henry. It has been done many, many times, Henry. Guess >> what? Every single time the speed is measured as being c! >This guy has again proves how stupid he is. It seems he enjoys making a >fool of himself. Ralph Malcolm, you sure do make a fool of yourself every day, don't you, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I didn't know you actually enjoyed making a fool of yourself, Ralph! Ralph, that explains a lot, Mr. Rabbidge. Ralph, I take it you also enjoy it when I mention your name (which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge), Ralph. Is it that you like the publicity, Ralph? >He thinks that light speed COMPARISON experiments produce a value of OWLS. No, Ralph, it was you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) who said there was no need to measure OWLS since the speed of light from moving sources is always measured as being c, Ralph. >...no wonder there are so many Irish jokes going around... Mr. Rabbidge, is that why you pretend to be the WASP name "Wilson"? You got too tired of people making Irish jokes because your last name is "Rabbidge", Ralph Rabbidge? Ralph, at least I am not descended from thieves and prostitutes, Ralph Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f27c33d2-2755-4a2f-80c0-5037e65497e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396133 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 18:16:42 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. > Having thusly found two light signals which DO move at different speeds, > we then can forget all about the name Einstein and just assume light > travels at c relative to its source and c+v relative to an approaching > observer. Wrong. The light speed is: c-v, in a moving frame with a speed v, then in a backward direction it's: c+v. c<---------O--->v------>c forward: c-v and backward: c+v A little more complicated case: c<--------A--->v----v<---B----->c a relative speed A-B = v- -v = 2v therefore when the light speed wrt A is c-v, then it's c+v for B, and vice versa. a difference is equal to the 2v - always!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 20:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nua1jb$1ho9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396161 |
On 20/10/16 07:54, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 18:16:42 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. > >> Having thusly found two light signals which DO move at different speeds, >> we then can forget all about the name Einstein and just assume light >> travels at c relative to its source and c+v relative to an approaching >> observer. > > Wrong. > > The light speed is: c-v, in a moving frame with a speed v, > then in a backward direction it's: c+v. > > c<---------O--->v------>c > > forward: c-v and backward: c+v Stop trying to be as dopey as a dingleberry. The 'v' in 'c+v' can be + or - > A little more complicated case: > c<--------A--->v----v<---B----->c > > a relative speed A-B = v- -v = 2v > therefore when the light speed wrt A is c-v, > then it's c+v for B, and vice versa. > > a difference is equal to the 2v - always! read what i said. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d86ed378-43d4-4046-8fcb-aa6e8a0a4b40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396096 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > > >> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just > >> assuming the result. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: > > just use a radar. > > > > But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, > > so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. > > > > The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one > needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one > from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from > the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are > essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and > sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving > them apart. > > In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals > propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. > > In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain > synchronised when they are moved apart. > > Sylvia. In the case by radar measurement you don't use any clock. The solution is very simply. I. the general radar equation is: k = f'/f = fun(v) = ... II. the relativistic radar eq. is: k' = 1-v/1+v; The relative speed must be the same in the both versions, so: I - II => the real one-way speed of light, because the II assumes c = inv.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 13:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e6qpq1FegkjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396159 |
On 20/10/2016 7:21 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 08:58:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/10/2016 12:28 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 05:46:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else >>> >>>> I take it, then, that you haven't done such an experiment. You're just >>>> assuming the result. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> An experiment which measures the one-way speed is very simple: >>> just use a radar. >>> >>> But you must first to calibrate your instrument correctly, >>> so you should measure two times, two different speeds... at least. >>> >> >> The difficulty with measuring the one way speed is that to do it one >> needs to make time measurements at the start and end, and subtract one >> from the other to determine the transit time. But subtracting one from >> the other only makes sense if the clocks are synchronised. There are >> essentially two ways of synchronising clocks - keeping them apart and >> sending signals between them, or bringing them together and then moving >> them apart. >> >> In the first case, it begs the question of how fast the signals >> propagate, and whether they propagate at the same speed in both directions. >> >> In the second case, the question is whether the clocks will remain >> synchronised when they are moved apart. >> >> Sylvia. > > In the case by radar measurement you don't use any clock. > > The solution is very simply. > > I. the general radar equation is: k = f'/f = fun(v) = ... > II. the relativistic radar eq. is: k' = 1-v/1+v; > > The relative speed must be the same in the both versions, so: That is very much the point at issue. The purpose of the desired experiment is to determine whether or not the speed of electromagnetic waves is the same in both directions. If your experimental protocol involves assuming that it is, then there's no point in doing the experiment. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c43e5f5a-3739-4b74-a159-6450def06d20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396180 |
W dniu czwartek, 20 października 2016 04:51:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > The solution is very simply. > > > > I. the general radar equation is: k = f'/f = fun(v) = ... > > II. the relativistic radar eq. is: k' = 1-v/1+v; > > > > The relative speed must be the same in the both versions, so: > > That is very much the point at issue. The purpose of the desired > experiment is to determine whether or not the speed of electromagnetic > waves is the same in both directions. If your experimental protocol > involves assuming that it is, then there's no point in doing the experiment. > > Sylvia. No. There is very big sense - the crucial in fact for every experiment! In the math You always compare some hypothesis with an other. But the so-called 'null hipothesis' is the perfect to compare (it's works in a role of a reference point). That is the key in the scientific area in fact... And the 'null hipothesis' is the case of the lightspeed is simply: c = inv.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bf3c8f0-b9f6-4b83-82e1-45ba6d49f3bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394961 |
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:55:08 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's > >>> your evidence for that? > >> > >> Every known physical experiment proves it. > > > > Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that > > it adds by the relativistic combination formula. > > Just one. Any one. > > Bodkin you are so predictable. > The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly > theory is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even > today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try > to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. So, Ralph, you can't answer the question? No big surprise here, we all knew you couldn't...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5lrb$17p6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394961 |
On 10/5/2016 4:55 PM, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/4/2016 5:16 PM, HGW wrote: >>>> So you're assuming that velocities combine by simple addition. Where's >>>> your evidence for that? >>> >>> Every known physical experiment proves it. >> >> Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND disproves that >> it adds by the relativistic combination formula. >> Just one. Any one. > > Bodkin you are so predictable. > The reason there is no direct evidence for or against Einstein's silly > theory So in one breath you say that every known experiment proves velocities combine by simple addition. Then in the next breath you say that there are no recorded experiments to date that prove velocities combine by simple addition. Do you spend all day saying X and then not-X just to keep conversation going? > is that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. Even > today, it is still too difficult. Until it is, people like you will try > to get value out of making inane statements like the one above. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6kqf$1dh5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394995 |
On 07/10/16 01:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/5/2016 4:55 PM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Cite one that proves that it adds by simple addition AND >>> disproves that it adds by the relativistic combination formula. >>> Just one. Any one. >> >> Bodkin you are so predictable. The reason there is no direct >> evidence for or against Einstein's silly theory > > So in one breath you say that every known experiment proves > velocities combine by simple addition. Then in the next breath you > say that there are no recorded experiments to date that prove > velocities combine by simple addition. So in one breath you say that because I say in one breath you say in another breath that every known experiment proves velocities combine by simple addition. Then in the next breath you say that because I say in another breath that there are no recorded experiments to date that prove velocities combine by simple addition that proves that velocities do NOT combine by simple addition... Gawd! this nonsense could go in forever!. > Do you spend all day saying X and then not-X just to keep > conversation going?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns7frk$bt3$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393643 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >> It does move at c relative to its source. >> >> But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, >> because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition). >Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive >the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way >the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them >subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure >frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses >is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. Good idea, Ralph, so let's figure out what speed the receiver will measure the speed of the light pulses, Ralph, if the sender sends the pulses at two different speeds, v1 and v2. Ralph, we all know that if the sender moving at v relative to the observer sends something at speed u relative to itself, the receiver will measure the speed of that something as (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). So, if the source of the pulses is moving at v1 and sends a pulse of light to the observer at c relative to the source, the observer will measure the speed as: (c+v1)/(1+c*v1/c^2). We can simplify that as (c+v1)/(1+v1/c). Multiply by 1 in the form c/c, now we have c*(c+v1)/(c+c*v1/c), or c*(c+v1)/(c+v1) or just c. So the receiver will receive the pulse when the source is moving at v1 at speed c relative to itself. And the observer did not affect the source in any way. Now let's repeat when the source is moving at speed v2. Ralph, I won't repeat the math, but it quickly becomes obvious the observer will also receive this light pulse at c. So, when the source sends a light pulse at c relative to itself, the observer will always receive it at c, relative to itself. Isn't that cool, Ralph!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 19:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns85b1$1vl9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393684 |
On 25/09/16 13:21, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> It does move at c relative to its source. >>> >>> But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse, >>> because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition). > >> Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive >> the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way >> the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them >> subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure >> frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses >> is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. > > Good idea, Doctor, so let's figure out what speed the receiver will measure > the speed of the light pulses, Doctor, if the sender sends the pulses at > two different speeds, v1 and v2. > > Doctor, we all know that if the sender moving at v relative to the > observer sends something at speed u relative to itself, the receiver > will measure the speed of that something as (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). > > So, if the source of the pulses is moving at v1 and sends a pulse of light > to the observer at c relative to the source, the observer will measure > the speed as: (c+v1)/(1+c*v1/c^2). We can simplify that as (c+v1)/(1+v1/c). > Multiply by 1 in the form c/c, now we have c*(c+v1)/(c+c*v1/c), or > c*(c+v1)/(c+v1) or just c. So the receiver will receive the pulse > when the source is moving at v1 at speed c relative to itself. > And the observer did not affect the source in any way. > > Now let's repeat when the source is moving at speed v2. Doctor, I won't > repeat the math, but it quickly becomes obvious the observer will also > receive this light pulse at c. So, when the source sends a light pulse > at c relative to itself, the observer will always receive it at c, > relative to itself. Isn't that cool, Doctor! Poor little Mickey....born lacking something up top apparently....Maybe his ancestors suffered in the potato famine and missed out on some vitamins. Moron-y, you have been tricked by a devious mathematician. He said, "we know that light moves at c in its source frame and by postulate it always moves at c in any other frame". Let w be the speed of light in the other frame and v the speed of the other frame relative to the source. By postulate: w = c. = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) Oh dear! Little Mickey has proved that w = c by using an equation that started out as w = c.... Oh dear, oh dear! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns9uqk$rkb$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #393705 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 25/09/16 13:21, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Good idea, Doctor, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, once again you overdosed on the stupid pills, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why are you trying to drag some doctor into this discussion, Ralph. Ralph, I was addressing you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, not any doctor. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, as far as I know, no doctor participates in this newsgroup, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. So don't doctor my posts, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. >Poor little Mickey....born lacking something up top apparently....Maybe >his ancestors suffered in the potato famine and missed out on some vitamins. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, are you talking about your own ancestors' lack of vitamins, Ralph? After all, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, "Rabbidge" is a fine name from the Emerald Isle, Ralph. And Ralph, being from Oz, you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) have no standing insulting anyone's ancestors, Ralph. After all, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, your ancestors would all have to be pickpockets, whores or petty thieves sentenced to "transportation" to wind up in Oz, Ralph. Not just petty criminals but criminals not smart enough to avoid getting caught, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. >Let w be the speed of light in the other frame and v the speed of the >other frame relative to the source. >By postulate: w = c. >= c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, working the equation backwards proves nothing other than working it forward as I did is correct, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, thanks for verifying that my math is correct, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. So Ralph, now that you verified my math, you have to agree that if some source is moving at v relative to the observer and emits a light pulse, the observer will see the light pulse as moving at c, and not c+v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 19:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsaqmb$1suf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393799 |
On 26/09/16 11:49, Michael Moroney wrote: "I don't understand circular logic...Never did!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e913764-0964-46ee-ad34-f50979803894@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393833 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 3:44:56 AM UTC-6, Dishonest Ralphie-boy pretended that Michael Moroney wrote: > > "I don't understand circular logic...Never did!" But actually it is dishonest Ralphie-infant that doesn't understand physicis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 14:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ns8h9t$cdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393643 |
On 24.09.2016 22:13, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive > the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way > the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them > subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure > frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses > is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself. > When an arbitrary observer measures the speed of light then the only true reference is himself (or the inertial frame in which he instantly is at rest). There is no way he can measure the speed of light relative to anything else than himself (his instruments). And as you well know, experimental evidence show that the speed of light in vacuum always is measured to be c, regardless of the speed of the source. 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 That Ralph Malcom Rabbidge fails to understand how it is possible that the speed of light is invariant doesn't say anything about light, but it does say a lot about Ralph Malcom Rabbidge. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web